Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
By abetting the ad industry, universities are leading us into temptation, when they
should be enlightening us
... ... ...
I ask because, while considering the frenzy
of consumerism that rises beyond its usual planet-trashing levels at this time of year, I
recently stumbled across a paper that astonished
me . It was written by academics at public universities in the Netherlands and the US.
Their purpose seemed to me starkly at odds with the public interest. They sought to identify
"the different ways in which consumers resist advertising, and the tactics that can be used to
counter or avoid such resistance".
Among the "neutralising" techniques it highlighted were "disguising the persuasive intent of
the message"; distracting our attention by using confusing phrases that make it harder to focus
on the advertiser's intentions; and "using cognitive depletion as a tactic for reducing
consumers' ability to contest messages". This means hitting us with enough advertisements to
exhaust our mental resources, breaking down our capacity to think.
Intrigued, I started looking for other academic papers on the same theme, and found an
entire literature. There were articles on every imaginable aspect of resistance, and helpful
tips on overcoming it. For example, I came across a paper that counsels advertisers on how to
rebuild public trust when the celebrity they work with gets into trouble. Rather than dumping
this lucrative asset, the researchers advised that the best means to enhance "the authentic
persuasive appeal of a celebrity endorser" whose standing has slipped is to get them to display
"a Duchenne smile", otherwise known as "a genuine smile". It precisely anatomised such smiles,
showed how to spot them, and discussed the "construction" of sincerity and "genuineness": a
magnificent exercise in inauthentic authenticity.
Another paper considered how
to persuade sceptical people to accept a company's corporate social responsibility claims,
especially when these claims conflict with the company's overall objectives. (An obvious
example is ExxonMobil's attempts to convince people that it is environmentally responsible,
because it is researching algal fuels that could one day reduce CO2 – even as it
continues to
pump millions of barrels of fossil oil a day ). I hoped the paper would recommend that the
best means of persuading people is for a company to change its practices. Instead, the authors'
research showed how images and statements could be cleverly combined to "minimise stakeholder
scepticism".
A further
paper discussed advertisements that work by stimulating
Fomo – fear of missing out . It noted that such ads work through "controlled
motivation", which is "anathema to wellbeing". Fomo ads, the paper explained, tend to cause
significant discomfort to those who notice them. It then went on to show how an improved
understanding of people's responses "provides the opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of
Fomo as a purchase trigger". One tactic it proposed is to keep stimulating the fear of missing
out, during and after the decision to buy. This, it suggested, will make people more
susceptible to further ads on the same lines.
Yes, I know: I work in an industry that receives most of its income from advertising, so I
am complicit in this too. But so are we all. Advertising – with its destructive
impacts on the living planet, our peace of mind and our free will – sits at the heart of
our growth-based economy. This gives us all the more reason to challenge it. Among the places
in which the challenge should begin are universities, and the academic societies that are
supposed to set and uphold ethical standards. If they cannot swim against the currents of
constructed desire and constructed thought, who can?
Looks like Guardian start turning away from neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... What price is paid when a promise is broken? Because for much of my life, and probably yours, the political class has made this pledge: that the best way to run an economy is to hack back the public realm as far as possible and let the private sector run free. That way, services operate better, businesses get the resources they need, and our national finances are healthier. ..."
"... I don't wish to write about the everyday failings of neoliberalism – that piece would be filed before you could say "east coast mainline". Instead, I want to address the most stubborn belief of all: that running a small state is the soundest financial arrangement for governments and voters alike. Because 40 years on from the Thatcher revolution, more and more evidence is coming in to the contrary. ..."
"... The other big reason for the UK's financial precarity is its privatisation programme, described by the IMF as no less than a "fiscal illusion". British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, "increase revenues and lower deficits but also reduce the government's asset holdings". ..."
"... IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future generations ..."
The fund reports that Britain's finances are weaker than all other nations except Portugal,
and says privatisation is to blame
Columnists usually proffer answers, but today I want to ask a question, a big one. What price
is paid when a promise is broken? Because for much of my life, and probably yours, the
political class has made this pledge: that the best way to run an economy is to hack back the
public realm as far as possible and let the private sector run free. That way, services operate
better, businesses get the resources they need, and our national finances are healthier.
It's why your tax credits keep
dropping , and your mum has to wait half a year to see a hospital consultant –
because David Cameron slashed public spending, to stop it "crowding out" private money. It's
why water bills are so high and train services can never be counted on – because both
industries have been privatised.
From the debacle of universal credit to the forced conversion of state schools into
corporate-run academies, the ideology of the small state – defined by no less a body than
the International Monetary Fund as neoliberalism – is all pervasive. It decides how much
money you have left at the end of the week and what kind of future your children will enjoy,
and it explains why your elderly relatives can't get a decent carer.
I don't wish to write about the everyday failings of neoliberalism – that piece would
be filed before you could say "east coast mainline". Instead, I want to address the most
stubborn belief of all: that running a small state is the soundest financial arrangement for
governments and voters alike. Because 40 years on from the Thatcher revolution, more and more
evidence is coming in to the contrary.
Let's start with the IMF itself. Last week it published
a report that barely got a mention from the BBC or in Westminster, yet helps reframe the
entire debate over austerity. The fund totted up both the public debt and the publicly owned
assets of 31 countries, from the US to Australia, Finland to France, and found that
the UK had among the weakest public finances of the lot. With less than £3 trillion
of assets against £5tn in pensions and other liabilities, the UK is more than £2tn
in the red . Of all the other countries examined by researchers, including the Gambia and
Kenya, only Portugal's finances look worse over the long run. So much for fixing the
roof.
'British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard from airports to
the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City.' Photograph:
Amer Ghazzal/Rex/Shutterstock
Almost as startling are the IMF's reasons for why Britain is in such a state: one way or
another they all come back to neoliberalism. Thatcher loosed finance from its shackles and used
our North Sea oil money to pay for swingeing tax cuts. The result is an overfinancialised
economy and a government that is £1tn worse off since the banking crash. Norway has
similar
North Sea wealth and a far smaller population, but also a sovereign wealth fund. Its net
worth has soared over the past decade.
The other big reason for the UK's financial precarity is its privatisation programme,
described by the IMF as no less than a "fiscal illusion". British governments have flogged
nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway
prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, "increase revenues
and lower deficits but also reduce the government's asset holdings".
Throughout the austerity decade, ministers and economists have pushed for spending cuts by
pointing to the size of the government's annual overdraft, or budget deficit. Yet there are two
sides to a balance sheet, as all accountants know and this IMF work recognises. The same goes
for our public realm: if Labour's John McDonnell gets into No 11 and renationalises the
railways, that would cost tens of billions – but it would also leave the country with
assets worth tens of billions that provided a regular income.
Instead, what this IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been
asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future
generations.
Privatisation and austerity have not only weakened the country's financial position –
they have also handed unearned wealth to a select few. Just look at
a new report from the University of Greenwich finding that water companies could have
funded all their day-to-day running and their long-term investments out of the bills paid by
customers. Instead of which, managers have lumbered the firms with £51bn of debt to pay
for shareholders' dividends. Those borrowed billions, and the millions in interest, will be
paid by you and me in our water bills. We might as well stuff the cash directly into the
pockets of shareholders.
Instead of competitively run utilities, record investment by the private sector and sounder
public finances, we have natural monopolies handed over to the wealthy, banks that can dump
their liabilities on the public when things get tough, and an outsourcing industry that feasts
upon the carcass of the public sector. As if all this weren't enough, neoliberal voices
complain that we need to cut taxes and red tape, and further starve our public services.
This is a genuine scandal, but it requires us to recognise what neoliberalism promised and
what it has failed to deliver. Some of the loudest critics of the ideology have completely
misidentified it. Academics will daub the term "neoliberal" on any passing phenomenon. Fitbits
are apparently neoliberal, as is Ben & Jerry's ice-cream and Kanye West. Pundits will say
that neoliberalism is about markets and choice – tell that to any commuter wedged on a
Southern rail train. And centrist politicians claim that the great failing of neoliberalism is
its carelessness about identity and place, which is akin to complaining that the boy on a moped
who snatched your smartphone is going too fast.
Let us get it straight. Neoliberalism has ripped you off and robbed you blind. The evidence
of that is mounting up – in your bills, in your services and in the finances of your
country.
• Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist and senior economics commentator
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives
dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the
everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The
face
to Trump's heel .
The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation,
pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove
this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding
common ground with Russia.
In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been
notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of
the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.
They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse
to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will
side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same
hashtags.
The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the
lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a
soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment
-- "The Magnificent Bastards".
Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under
fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around
the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a
couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.
Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his
country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.
Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always
have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.
What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having
ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".
Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly
and always speaks his mind aswell.
Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more
nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left
office .
Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's
role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of
the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly
authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.
Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.
Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once.
A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key
role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":
It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how
tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like
Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable
in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep
State.
A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance".
Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran
and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand
of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same
monster.
Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting
alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.
Kit
Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's
John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on
9/11.
Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were
reported?
i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to
this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like
a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really
is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy
the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece
where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us
how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly
re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my
arse
And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's
also a proven incompetent.
Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is
wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that
point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all
other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be
true.
Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a
Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.
Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that
Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents
ordered by the Orange One.
The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's
Bad Cop. Nothing more.
This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which
in reality is an imperial plutocracy.
In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia,
there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.
The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is
in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.
The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and
Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.
("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance").
-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical
record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of
course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have
to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or
intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world"
behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the
"resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S.
population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally
bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.
Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's
slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for
U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into
dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all
important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . .
while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?
It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There
certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode
seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his
son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the
information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of
humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that
now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The
'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say
bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No
wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the
richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing
control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of
Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to
stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who
knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern
Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most
serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over
the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers,
killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in
reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to
break away
Blooming Barricade , Dec 26, 2018 12:18:48 PM |
link
@2
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that... the fact that they're reverting to the old
name is the final step in the rehabilitation of the Iraq War criminals without liberals and
pseudo left none of which would be possible
Chris Williamson: Private Eye has reported that the #IntegrityInitiative anti-propoaganda
unit is taking tips from the security masterminds who tried to sell the wisdom of going to
war in Iraq!
And this outfit was set up by the Institute for Statecraft that's received £millions
from HM Govt!!! https://mobile.twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1076983080131416066
'Trickle down effect' - the favourite buzzword of neoliberal supporters. I'd like to see
trickle down effect tried at the local pub on the taps by the local mp. Imagine what would
happen. Definitely doesn't pass the pub test.
I still had some things I didn't talk about in Sunday's Trump Derangement
International , about how the European press have found out that they, like the US MSM, can
get lots of viewers and readers simply by publishing negative stories about Donald Trump. The
US president is an attention magnet, as long as you only write things about him designed to
make him look bad.
The Guardian is only too happy to comply. They ran a whole series of articles on Sunday to
do juts that: try to make Trump look bad. Note that the Guardian editorial team that okayed the
articles is the same as the one that allowed
the fake Assange/Manafort one , so their credibility is already shot to pieces. It's the
magic triangle of today's media profits: spout non-stop allegations against Russia, Trump and
Julian Assange, and link them when and where you can. It doesn't matter if what you say is true
or not.
Anyway, all the following is from the Guardian, all on December 23. First off, Adam Gabbatt
in New York, who has painstakingly researched how Trump's businesses, like Trump Tower and the
Trump store, don't appear to have sufficiently (as per him) switched from Happy Holidays to
Merry Christmas. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud. A smash hit there Adam, bring out the
handcuffs.
During Donald Trump's presidential campaign he talked often about his determination to win
one particular war. A war that had been raging for years, he said. Specifically: the war on
Christmas. But despite Trump's repeated claims that "people are saying Merry Christmas again"
instead of the more inclusive "happy holidays", there are several places where the Christmas
greeting is absent: Trump's own businesses.
The Trump Store, for example. Instead of a Christmas gift guide – which surely would
be more in keeping with the president's stated desire for the phrase to be used – the
store offers a holiday gift guide. "Shop our Holiday Gift Guide and find the perfect present
for the enthusiast on your list," the online store urges. "Carefully curated to celebrate the
most wonderful time of year with truly unique gifts found only at Trump Store. Add a bow on
top with our custom gift wrapping. Happy Holiday's!"
The use of the phrase "Happy Holiday's" [sic] in Trump marketing would seem particularly
egregious. The long-standing "War-on-Christmas" complaint from the political right is that
stores use the phrase "Happy Holidays", rather than specifically mentioning the Christian
celebration. It is offered as both an example of political correctness gone mad, and as an
effort to erase Christianity from the US.
It's just, I think that if Trump had personally interfered to make sure there were Merry
Christmas messages all around, you would have remarked that as president, he's not allowed to
be personally involved in his businesses. But yeah, you know, just to keep the negativity
going, it works, no matter how fluffy and hollow.
Second, still on December 23, is Tom McCarthy for the Guardian in New York, who talks about
Robert Mueller's phenomenal successes. Mueller charged 34 people so far. In a case that
involves "this complexity which has international implications, aspects relying on the
intelligence community, complicated cyber components". It really says that.
And yes, that's how many people view this. What do they care that Mueller's original mandate
was to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and 'Russians', and that he has not proven
any collusion at all so far, not even with 34 people charged? What do they care? It looks like
Trump is guilty of something, anything, after all, and that's all the circus wants.
One measure of special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutorial success in 2018 is the list
of former top Donald Trump aides brought to justice: Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, a jury
convicted Paul Manafort, a judge berated Michael Flynn. Another measure is the tally of new
defendants that Mueller's team charged (34), the number of new guilty pleas he netted (five)
and the amount of money he clawed back through tax fraud cases ($48m).
Yet another measure might judge Mueller's pace compared with previous independent
prosecutors. "I would refer to it as a lightning pace," said Barb McQuade, a University of
Michigan law professor and former US attorney. "In a case of this complexity which has
international implications, aspects relying on the intelligence community, complicated cyber
components – to indict that many people that quickly is really impressive work."
But there's perhaps a more powerful way to measure Mueller's progress in his investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 US election and links between Moscow and the Trump
campaign; that's by noticing how the targets of his investigation have changed their postures
over the course of 2018, from defiance to docility – or in the case of Trump himself,
from defiance to extreme, hyperventilating defiance.
In reality, you would be at least as correct if you would claim that Robert Mueller's
investigation has been an abject failure. Not one iota of collusion has been proven after 20
months and $20 million in funds have been used. And any serious investigation of Washington's
culture of fixers and lobbyists would land at least 34 people who have committed acts that
border on or over illegality. And in a matter of weeks, for a few hundred bucks.
Third, still on December 23, is Julian Borger in Washington, who's been elected to convey
the image of chaos. Trump Unleashed, says our modern day Shakespeare. With Jim Mad Dog Mattis
characterized as ".. the last independently minded, globally respected, major figure left in
the administration".. . Again, it really says that.
Because woe the man who tries to bring US troops home, or even promises to do so a few days
before Christmas. For pulling out America's finest, Donald Trump is being portrayed as
something eerily close to the antichrist. That truly is the world on its head. Bringing troops
home to their families equals chaos.
Look, guys, if Trump has been guilty of criminal behavior, the US justice system should be
able to find that out and convict him for it. But that's not what this is about anymore. A
million articles have been written, like these ones in the Guardian, with the sole intention,
evidence being scarce to non-existent, of smearing him to the extent that people see every
subsequent article in the light of a man having previously been smeared.
The US stumbled into the holiday season with a sense of unravelling, as a large chunk of
the federal government ground to a halt, the stock market crashed and the last independently
minded, globally respected, major figure left in the administration announced he could no
longer work with the president. The defense secretary, James Mattis, handed in his
resignation on Thursday, over Donald Trump's abrupt decision to pull US troops out of
Syria.
On Saturday another senior official joined the White House exodus. Brett McGurk, the
special envoy for the global coalition to defeat Isis and the US official closest to
America's Kurdish allies in the region, was reported to have handed in his resignation on
Friday. That night, senators flew back to Washington from as far away as Hawaii for emergency
talks aimed at finding a compromise on Trump's demand for nearly $6bn for a wall on the
southern border, a campaign promise which has become an obsession.
Now look at the next headline, December 23, Graeme Wearden, Guardian, and ask yourself if
it's really Trump saying he doesn't agree with the rate hikes that fuels the fears, or whether
it's the hikes themselves. And also ask yourself: when Trump and Mnuchin both deny reports of
Trump firing Powell, why do journalists keep saying the opposite? Because they want to fuel
some fears?
From where I'm sitting, it looks perfectly logical that Trump says he doesn't think Powell's
decisions are good for the US economy. And it doesn't matter which one of the two turns out to
be right: Trump isn't the only person who disagrees with the Fed hikes.
The main suspect for 2019 market turmoil is the inevitable fallout from the Fed's QE under
Bernanke and Yellen. And there is something to be said for Powell trying to normalize rates,
but there's no doubt that may hasten, if not cause, turmoil. Blaming it on Trump not agreeing
with Jay Powell is pretty much as left field as it gets.
Over the weekend, a flurry of reports claimed Donald Trump had discussed the possibility
of firing the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. Such an unprecedented move would
trigger further instability in the markets, which have already had their worst year since the
2008 crisis. US officials scrambled to deny Trump had suggested ousting Powell, who was
appointed by the president barely a year ago.
The Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, tweeted that he had spoken to the president, who
insisted he "never suggested firing" Powell, and did not believe he had the right to do this
. However, Trump also declared – via Mnuchin – that he "totally disagrees" with
the Fed's "absolutely terrible" policy of raising interest rates and unwinding its
bond-buying stimulus programme, piling further pressure on the US's independent central
bank.
And now, in the only article in the Guardian series that's December 24, not 23, by Victoria
Bekiempis and agencies, the plunging numbers in the stock markets are Trump's fault, too.
Top Democrats have accused Donald Trump of "plunging the country into chaos" as top
officials met to discuss a growing rout in stock markets caused in part by the president's
persistent attacks on the Federal Reserve and a government shutdown. "It's Christmas Eve and
President Trump is plunging the country into chaos," the two top Democrats in Congress, House
speaker nominee Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, wrote in a joint
statement on Monday. "The stock market is tanking and the president is waging a personal war
on the Federal Reserve – after he just fired the Secretary of Defense."
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve on Monday, describing it as the "only problem" for
the US economy, even as top officials convened the "plunge protection team" forged after the
1987 crash to discuss the growing rout in stock markets. The crisis call on Monday between US
financial regulators and the US treasury department failed to assure markets, and stocks fell
again amid concern about slowing economic growth, the continuing government shutdown, and
reports that Trump had discussed firing Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell.
The last one is from one Jonathan Jones, again December 23, again for the Guardian. And it
takes the top award in the narrative building contest.
Again, the Guardian editorial team that okayed this article is still the same as the one
that allowed the fake Assange/Manafort one, an editorial team that sees no problem in making
things up in order to smear people. To portray Trump, Assange and anyone who's had the
misfortune of being born in Russia as suspicious if not outright criminal.
But look at what Jones has to say, and what Guardian editor-in-chief Kathy Viner and her ilk
allowed and pressured him to say. He wants to have a say in how Trump should dress (seasonal
knitwear), he evokes the image of Nazi architect Albert Speer for no reason at all, and then
it's a matter of mere inches until you arrive at Trump as a king, an emperor, an inner
tyrant.
"He's in a tuxedo!", Like that's a bad thing for Christmas. "She's in white!". Oh dear, call
the pope. If both Trumps would have put on Christmas sweaters in front of a fire, the writer
would have found something negative in that.
The absence of intimacy in the Trumps' official Christmas portrait freezes the heart. Can
it be that hard to create a cosy image of the presidential couple, perhaps in front of a
roaring hearth, maybe in seasonal knitwear? Or is this quasi-dictatorial image exactly what
the president wants to project? Look on my Christmas trees, ye mighty, and despair! If so, it
fuels suspicions that it is only the checks and balances of a 230-year-old constitution that
are keeping America from the darkest of political fates. You couldn't create a creepier
Yuletide scene if you tried. Multiple Christmas trees are currently a status symbol for the
wealthy, but this picture shows the risks.
Instead of a homely symbol of midwinter cheer, these disciplined arboreal ranks with their
uniform decorations are arrayed like massed soldiers or colossal columns designed by Albert
Speer. The setting is the Cross Hall in the White House and, while the incumbent president
cannot be held responsible for its architecture, why heighten its severity with such rigid,
heartless seasonal trappings? Everything here communicates cold, empty magnificence. Tree
lights that are as frigid as icicles are mirrored in a cold polished floor. Equally frosty
illuminations are projected on the ceiling. Instead of twinkling fairy magic, this lifeless
lighting creates a sterile, inhuman atmosphere.
You can't imagine kids playing among these trees or any conceivable fun being had by
anyone. It suggests the micromanaged, corporate Christmas of a Citizen Kane who has long
since lost touch with the ordinary, warm pleasures of real life. In the centre of this
disturbing piece of conceptual art stand Donald and Melania Trump. He's in a tuxedo, she's
wearing white – and not a woolly hat in sight. Their formal smartness adds to the
emotional numbness of the scene. Trump's shark-like grin has nothing generous or friendly
about it. He seems to want to show off his beautiful wife and his fantastic home rather than
any of the cuddly holiday spirit a conventional politician might strive to share at this
time.
It begs a question: how can a man who so glaringly lacks anything like a common touch be
such a successful "populist"? What can a midwestern voter find in this image to connect with?
Perhaps that's the point. After more than two centuries of democracy, Trump is offering the
US people a king, or emperor. In this picture, he gives full vent to his inner tyrant. If
this portrait contains any truth about the state of America and the world, may Santa help us
all.
I realize that you may be tired of the whole story. I realize you may have been caught in
the anti-Trump narrative. And I am by no means a Trump fan. But I will keep on dragging you
back to this. Because the discussion should not be based on a handful of media moguls not
liking Trump. It should not be based on innuendo and smear. If Trump is to be convicted, it
must be on evidence.
And there is no such evidence. Robert Mueller has charged 34 people, but none with what his
mandate was based on, none with Russia collusion. This means that the American political
system, and democracy itself, is under severe threat by the very media that are supposed to be
its gate keepers.
None of this is about Trump, or about whether you like him or not, or even if he's a shady
character or not. Instead, it's about the influence the media have on how our opinions and
ideas about people and events are being shaped on a daily basis.
And once you acknowledge that your opinions of Trump, Putin et al, even without any proof of
a connection between them, are actively being molded by the press you expect to inform you
about the truth behind what goes on, you will have to acknowledge, too, that you are a captive
of forces that use your gullibility to make a profit off you.
If our media need to make up things all the time about who's guilty of what, because our
justice systems are incapable of that, then we have a problem so enormous we may not be able to
overcome it in our present settings.
Alternatively, if we trust our justice systems to deliver true justice, we don't need a
hundred articles a day to tell us how Trump or Putin are such terrible threats to our world.
Our judges will tell us, not our journalists or media who are only in it for a profit.
I can say: "let's start off 2019 trying to leave prejudice behind", and as much as that is
needed and you may agree with me, it's no use if you don't realize to what extent your views of
the world have been shaped by prejudice.
I see people reacting to the star writer at Der Spiegel who wrote a lot about Trump, being
exposed as a fraud. I also see people trying to defend Julian Assange from the Guardian article
about his alleged meetings with Paul Manafort, that was an obvious big fat lie (the truth is
Manafort talked to Ecuador to help them 'sell' Assange to the US).
But reacting to the very obvious stuff is not enough . The echo chamber distorts the truth
about Trump every single day, and at least six times on Sunda y, as this essay of mine shows.
It's just that after two years of this going on 24/7, it is perceived as the normal.
Everyone makes money dumping on the Donald, it's a proven success formula, so why would the
Guardian and Der Spiegel stay behind? They'd only hurt their own bottom line.
It has nothing to do with journalism, though, or news. It's smear and dirt, the business
model of the National Enquirer. That's how far our once truthful media have fallen.
All these journalists are influenced and manipulated by 'Australian-American Leadership
Dialogue', 'Atlantikbrücke', Open Society Foundation money etc. Wars boost the NYSE
because many weapons manufacturers are listed there.
If the journalists weren't manipulated all 2018 compilations would not have omitted the
World Cup in Russia.
"... Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous. ..."
"... Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. ..."
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating
schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in
persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of
scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision
for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History
is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen
in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
When governments like the LNP (driven as it is by its ideology of greed, the IPA manifesto
and Gina Rinehart's idea of what Australia should look like [and how little she should pay to
pillage "communally owned" assets to enrich herself beyond imagination - she has no greater
claim over the Pilbara than any other Australian, but like all who live by the ethos of
greed, she thinks she should get it all for nothing]).
When the LNP talk about "small government" and "slashing red tape" it is politician-speak
for small government and NO red tape for the rich. What it also means is much more government
and red tape for the poor and vulnerable - as we would expect, the rich and powerful, who
really dictate economic and social policy in this country enlist willing governments to enact
measures that suppress the lower classes. It is not quite calling out the military (as Hawke
did during the pilot's strike at the insistence of the corpulent Ables - one act for which I
will always despise Hawke), but it has the same result by more surreptitious, lasting and
egregious means.
And one of the lasting legacies of the philosophies of neo-liberalism, from which the
Hanson's of the world "suck their oxygen" is that the political and corporate dialogue of the
last 30 or so years has pushed the notion of self-entitlement and vilification of the poor
and vulnerable further down the economic ladder. So now, we have countless Australians on
reasonable incomes who, like the rich, are convinced that all of our social and economic ills
can be rectified if we stop giving handouts to the bludgers, the malingerers, the disabled
and the indigenous - the neo-liberal rhetoric is now so widespread that it is easier than
ever for the vulnerable to be attacked and for many, that is seen as absolutely necessary. It
is the false US-sourced notion that if you are poor, it is because you deserve to be and if I
am rich - it isn't luck or inheritance - it is because I deserve it. This world-view makes it
so much easier to attack the vulnerable as receiving way to much to sit at home and
bludge.
Want to forget the now disgraced CEO of Australia Post who bought a Sydney mansion for $22
million and now wants to sell it for $40 million - tax free I might add. He is entitled to
that wealth enhancement. But someone on the dole smokes a spliff now and then and we think
they should lose their entitlements to an income that doesn't even get them up to the poverty
line (but they should be grateful for that pittance). Want to forget the CEO's who
pretentiously do their "sleeping rough" for a night and proclaim their empathy for the
homeless who would shriek at paying more tax to genuinely fund programmes to help the down
and outs. No problem - just embrace the selfish and greedy neo-liberalism philosophy.
This article is excellent and well overdue. All we need to do now is to wrench control of our
mainstream media out of the hands of Corporate (foreign) control. We are being told to vote
against ourselves in order for the few corporate elite to accrue massive wealth and
power over us.
MEDIA laws need to be very strict with very, very severe financial penalties for bias and
propaganda. Certainly remove this concept of self regulation whereby they sit on their own
disciplinary boards. Raise the standards of our media and allow us to retrieve some semblance
of our democracy.
Without media control, how would corporations be able to manipulate and propagandise the
populace with their own vested interests.
That is why governments are doing corporate bidding and getting fascist style surveillance
of its people, in order to counteract the ability of the people to gain knowledge through the
internet and vote against corporate control of our democracy.... nothing to do with terrorism
which was caused mostly by corporate foreign extraction of wealth through weapon sales;
resource acquisition, etc.
It is back to control of our mainstream media by the very (foreign) corporations that are
sucking out our wealth and putting nothing back.
Corporate media ia all powerful. They insidiously permeate the populace with corporate
views of Australia's financial and economy; infrastructure and every aspect of social
life from birth to euthanasia with racism and religion thrown in for good measure.
Should a politician have the audacity to act against their corporate interests, they do
not last long, without exclusions - PMs Whitlam and Rudd being prime examples.
This current mob of gutless underachieving dinosaur neo con nutters in govt, are
completely turning over Australia to these Corporate (foreign) parasites and our prospect is
not looking good.
Within no time we will be a Corporatocracy (as is the USA) and along with that comes 1%
owning 99% of the wealth; third world poverty; crime through the roof; drugs out of control;
public health and education a joke; public services non existent; legal system in disarray
and entrenched with bias and inequity.
"... The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education, or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and all ..."
After the mining boom and decades of economic growth, how can Australia be broke?
Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's richest woman those on the minimum wage were falling further and
further behind
Australia just experienced one of the biggest mining booms in
world history. But even at the peak of that boom, there was no talk of the wonderful opportunity we finally had to invest in world-class
mental health or domestic violence crisis services.
Nor was there much talk from either major party about how the wealth of the
mining boom gave us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in remote Indigenous communities. Nope, the peak of the mining boom
was not the time to help those who had missed out in decades past, but the Howard government thought it was a great time to introduce
permanent tax cuts for high-income earners. These, of course, are the tax cuts that caused the budget deficits we have today.
Millions of tonnes of explosives were used during the mining boom to build more than 100 new mines, but it wasn't just prime farmland
that was blasted away in the boom, it was access to the middle class. At the same time that Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's
richest woman on the back of rising iron ore prices, those on the minimum wage were falling further and further behind their fellow
Australians.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the character of the poor than
with the rules of the game: "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something
to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."
Privatisation is deeply unpopular with voters. Here's how to end it | John Quiggin
Australia isn't poor; it is rich beyond the imagining of anyone living in the 1970s or 80s. But so much of that
new wealth has been vacuumed up by a few, and so little of that new wealth has been paid in tax, that the public has
been convinced that ours is a country struggling to pay its bills.
Convincing Australians that our nation is poor and that our governments "can't afford" to provide the level of services they provided
in the past has not just helped to lower our expectations of our public services and infrastructure, it has helped to lower our expectations
of democracy itself. A public school in Sydney has had to ban kids from running in the playground because it was so overcrowded.
Trains have become so crowded at peak hours that many people, especially the frail and the disabled, are reluctant to use them. And
those who have lost their jobs now wait for hours on the phone when they reach out to Centrelink for help.
Although people with low expectations are easier to con, fomenting cynicism about democracy comes at a long-term cost. Indeed,
as the current crop of politicians is beginning to discover, people with low expectations feel they have nothing to lose.
As more and more people live with the poverty and job insecurity that flow directly from neoliberal welfare and industrial relations
policies, the scare campaigns run so successfully by the likes of the Business Council of Australia have lost their sting. Scary
stories about the economy become like car alarms: once they attracted attention, but now they simply annoy those forced to listen.
'If governments can't make a difference and all politicians are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders?
After decades of hearing conservative politicians say that government is the problem, a growing number of conservative
voters no longer care which major party forms government. If governments can't make a difference and all politicians
are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders like Jacqui Lambie or Clive Palmer? There is perhaps no clearer evidence of
the short-termism of the Liberal and National parties today than their willingness to fan the flames of anti-politician
rhetoric without considering that it is their own voters who are most likely to heed the message.
Back when he was leading the campaign against Australia becoming a republic, Tony Abbott famously argued that you couldn't trust
politicians to choose our head of state. And more recently, in campaigning against marriage equality, Minister Matt Canavan was featured
in a television advertisement laughing at the thought that we could trust politicians.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world
Convincing Australians that the country was broke also helped convince us that we have no choice but to sell the
family silver. But of course we have a choice. Just as there is no right answer as to whether it's better to rent
a home or buy one, there is no right answer to whether it's better for governments to own the electricity supply,
the postal service or the water supply, or none of these things.
Different governments in different countries make different decisions at different points in time. While much of neoliberalism's
rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives.
Indeed, even the so-called free marketeers in Australia can see alternatives.
Consider stadiums, for example. The NSW Liberal government has a long track record of being pro-privatisation. It has sold off
billions of dollars' worth of electricity, water and health infrastructure. But when it comes to football stadiums, it has no ideological
problem with public ownership, nor any fiscal inhibition about spending billions of taxpayers' dollars.
In 2016 the NSW Liberal government spent $220m buying back ANZ Stadium, built in the 1990s with taxpayer funds at a cost of $690m
and subsequently sold to Stadium Australia Group. Having bought back the stadium, the NSW government plans to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars refurbishing it. That same money could build a lot of school science labs, domestic violence crisis centres or skate parks
for the bored kids the shopping malls don't want scratching up their marble stairs. For the past 30 years, Australians have been
told that we can't afford high-quality public services, that public ownership of assets is inefficient, and that the pursuit of free
markets through deregulation would create wealth and prosperity for all. But none of this is true.
While the policy agenda
of neoliberalism has never been broadly applied in Australia, for 30 years the language
of neoliberalism has been applied to everything from environmental protection to care of the disabled. The result of the partial
application of policy and the broad application of language is not just a yawning gap between those with the greatest wealth and
those with the greatest need, but a country that is now riven by demographic, geographic and racial divides.
Cutting the budget deficit is very important – except when it isn't
Australian politics
isn't about ideology, it's about interests. The clearest proof of that claim is that neoliberal ideas such
as deregulation were never aimed at powerful interest groups like the pharmacists or the gambling industry. And savage spending cuts
were never aimed at subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry or private health insurers.
Tony Abbott, who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows
powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their
enemies and giving money to their friends. Here are some examples:
John Howard said he was obsessed with deregulating the labour market, but introduced 762 pages of labour-market regulation,
which he entitled WorkChoices. He didn't deregulate the labour market; he re-regulated it in his preferred form. He knew that
government decisions matter. Similarly, the Abbott government declared it was waging a war on red tape, yet the Turnbull government
is determined to pass new laws restricting unions and NGOs.
If there is one thing that neoliberals really seem to believe, it is that reducing the budget deficit is very, very important.
Except when it isn't. The political and business leaders who said we needed to slash welfare spending because we had a "budget
emergency" are currently advocating a $65bn tax cut for business – even though the deficit is bigger now than it was at the
time of the alleged emergency.
The Productivity Commission and state treasuries spent years advocating the deregulation and privatisation of the electricity
industry – and succeeded in creating a "free market" system governed by 5,000 pages of electricity market rules. Electricity
is too dangerous and too important to be deregulated, and those pushing for deregulation always knew that. They didn't want
a free market; they simply wanted a market, one in which the government played a smaller role and the private sector made large
profits selling an essential service for much higher prices than the government ever charged.
The NSW government requires NGOs and disability service providers to compete with each other but, when it sold Port Botany
and the Port of Newcastle, it structured the sales to ensure that Newcastle could not compete with Port Botany for the landing
of the millions of containers that arrive by ship each year. While "competition policy" is applied to the vulnerable, those
buying billion-dollar assets are protected from those same forces of competition.
To be clear, there has been no obsession among the political elite with the neoliberal goals of reducing government spending,
regulation or tax collection in Australia over the past three decades. None. They didn't mean a word of it. While there may have
been economists, commentators and even business leaders who sincerely believed in those goals, it is clear from their actions, as
distinct from their words, that John Howard, Tony Abbott and even the former head of the Business Council of Australia Tony Shepherd,
the man tasked with running Abbott's National Commission of Audit, had no principled objection to spending large amounts of public
money on things they liked spending large amounts of public money on. Indeed, in his speakers' agency profile, Tony Shepherd brags
about his ability to get public money for private ventures:
It is no mean feat to convince governments to support private sector proposals, but as former prime minister, the honourable
Paul Keating, said, "Tony managed to get more money out of my government than any other person I can recall."
Hundreds of new pages of regulation now govern the conduct of charities. Billions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent by "small
government" politicians on everything from television ads for innovation to subsidies for marriage counselling. And Tony Abbott,
who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise.
The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education,
or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and
all
red tape in general? Once you have convinced the public that all government spending is inefficient, you can set about
cutting spending on your enemies and retaining it for your friends. And once you convince people that all regulation is bad, you
can set about removing consumer protections while retaining the laws that protect the TV industry, the gambling industry, the pharmaceutical
industry and all your other friends.
Cover of Dead Right by Richard Denniss, Quarterly Essay.
When powerful groups want subsidies, we are told they will create jobs. When powerless groups want better funding
for domestic violence shelters or after-school reading groups, they are told of the need to reduce the budget deficit.
When powerful groups demand new regulations, we are told it will provide business with certainty, but when powerless
groups demand new regulations, they are told it will create sovereign risk.
Ideology has a bad name these days, but it simply means a "system of ideas and ideals." By that definition, it is possible to
think of neoliberalism as an ideology focused on the idea that market forces are superior to government decision-making. But while
large segments of Australian politics and business have draped themselves, and their policy preferences, in the cloak of neoliberal
ideas and ideals, in reality to call them "ideologues" is to flatter them. They lack the consistency and strength of principle to
warrant the title.
Tue 16 Oct 2018
13.00 EDT
Last modified on Tue 16 Oct 2018
19.11 EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
This article is over
2 months old
Australian economic growth has been a 'standout' says Bernie Fraser, but too many have missed the benefits.
Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/EPA
Neoliberalism has caused "misery and social polarisation" yet remains in vogue with the Coalition government,
according to the economist Bernie Fraser.
The former Treasury secretary and Reserve Bank governor has made the
comments in a presentation circulated to participants of the Australia Institute's revenue summit to be held in
Canberra on Wednesday.
Michael Keating, a former secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will also use the summit
to raise doubts about the Morrison government's budget forecasts.
Australia's housing boom is not heading for a soft landing. How did we get
here? | Greg Jericho
Read more
In the background notes for Fraser's speech, seen by Guardian Australia, he says that Australia's 27 consecutive
years of economic growth is a "standout", "Winx-like" performance.
But the record deserves only "qualified applause" because "too many Australians remain unemployed, under-employed,
underskilled, underpaid and lack job security".
Fraser warns that society has become "less fair, less compassionate and more divided" and "more devoid of trust in
almost every field of human activity" in the past 20 years.
"As a disinterested player in climate change negotiations and a miserable foreign aid donor, we have slipped well
down the list of good global citizens."
Political ideologies appear to have contributed to inequality and disadvantage in Australia in that time, he
argues.
Fraser in large part blames "neoliberalism" and its influence on policymaking for the "disconnect between
Australia's impressive economic growth story and its failure on so many markers to show progress towards a better,
fairer society".
"Favouring the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of community interests, can
lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes.
More than three million Australians living in poverty, Acoss report reveals
Read more
"Those unable to afford access to decent standards of housing, healthcare, and other essential services have to
settle for inferior arrangements, or go without."
Fraser says charitable organisations see the effects of "real poverty" that result in "misery, anxiety and loss of
self-esteem of mothers unable to put food on the table for their kids, of old and young homeless people, and the
victims of domestic violence and drug overdoses".
Fraser summarises the key thrusts of neoliberalism as "the pursuit of the lowest possible rates of income and most
other taxes and the maximum restraint on government interventions and spending programs".
Evidence in Australia and overseas shows the influence of neoliberalism on fiscal policy "and the misery and
social polarisation that has come with it", he says.
The global financial crisis "should have" marked a tipping point, when the "idealised view of financial markets
being self-regulating" was shattered. While Australia "avoided the worst traumas of the GFC" with prompt fiscal and
monetary policy responses, in Europe "taxes were increased and spending programs slashed", resulting in a further
five or six years of severe recession.
Fraser says that all political ideologies – taken to extremes – can be divisive and cause damage, including an
ideology "based on a state system".
But the former Reserve Bank governor focuses on neoliberalism because it "remains in vogue". The Morrison
government "continues to reaffirm its over-riding commitment to lower taxation, and to assert that this is the best
way to increase investment, jobs and economic growth" -
despite the lack of evidence to support the theory
.
Although Fraser recognises that politics never can or should be taken out of policymaking, he suggests the best
course is to "hammer away" at flaws of particular approaches.
In a separate presentation Keating – who headed PM&C from 1991 to 1996 – warns the government's promise to cap
expenditure while simultaneously cutting taxes and returning the budget to surplus is based on overly optimistic
assumptions of growth in GDP, wages and productivity.
Why are stock markets falling and how far will they go?
Read more
According to Keating, the government must stop assuming there have been no structural changes in the relationship
between unemployment and the rate of wage increases.
He notes that predictions of a tightening labour market leading to higher wages are predicated on assumptions of
growth averaging 3% or as much as 3.5%.
He will also say a sustained return to past rates of economic growth will be impossible unless we can ensure a
reasonably equitable distribution of income, involving a faster rate of wage increases, especially for the low-paid.
Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck, has a forthcoming book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and
the Future of White Majorities . He argues that what I would call "bad nationalism" –
the global surge in rightwing populism – is driven by large-scale immigration, and the
threat it poses to the cultural identity of the ethnic majority. Some people fear change; they
prefer the monocultural landscape in which they grew up, and visible changes to it threaten
their sense of belonging and security. Certain attitudes are, if not hereditary, baked in to
the point where they may as well be.
He supports this view with plentiful survey data, a favourite nugget being that the way you
answer the question, "Would you prefer your children to be well-mannered, or to be
considerate?" is a major predictor of whether you'd vote for or against Trump and Brexit .
The question is a proxy for what the cognitive linguist George Lakoff calls the strict
father (well-mannered) versus the nurturant family (considerate) model. These frames are the
timeless and elemental organising principles for our political divisions –
authoritarian versus pluralist, right versus left – all the way back to Christ the
Warrior versus Christ the Saviour.
I believe people respond to authoritarian and pluralist arguments according to who's
making them, how trenchantly they are made, and the economic, media and political environment
around them. Austerity soil has always been notoriously fertile for authoritarian ideas. Yet
Kaufmann dismisses any economic factor, saying that had there been one, 2008 would have seen
an upturn in rightwing nationalism, not 2017. My view is that depressions take years, not
months, to grind people down.
To me the key questions are how are the key decisions made and by whom are they made?
Globalism (not globalization, mind you) is a process whereby decisionmaking gets shifted
farther and farther from the people and democratic accountability is continually weakened -
ironically often with the rationale that we need this to "compete with China".
As a result, national borders (and therefore cultures) become less and less important
and institutions like central banks, the EU, the WTO, etc. become ever more powerful. What
you call neoliberalism is an effect - not the cause - of this phenomenon, in my
opinion.
By the way, I agree with you that there is hope - in fact I am more optimistic today
than I have been for many years - although probably for very different reasons than
you.
I am quite sure that for the time being the nation state is an essential form of political
and economic organisation. So I accept the necessity of nations. I reject nationalist
ideologies which at best are confused, like ZW's argument, and at worst are very nasty
things indeed.
I was stunned by the modernity of Renan's speech when I read it. Glad to see that it is
available online. Hope you read it.
Globalisation is the ability to move goods/finance/ideas/culture around the global at
speeds unheard of - there is no way to alter this, so your definition is inexact by quite a
margin.
What is happening is neoliberalism - the economic sytem which has hijacked Globalisation
- is playing havoc across the world.
These are not one and the same thing. Nationalism is a reaction to neoliberailsm, and
the way it is concentrating wealth in the hands of the few.
Take a look at places like Finland, Norway and other parts of Europe, where they have
restrained neoliberalism and do not have the same levels of inequality as in the USA or the
UK. Japan is the most equal developed nation in the world. We need to marry strong
democratic structures (at national and global level) with globalisation at the expense of
neo-liberalism, not in support of it.
In short, your view is depressing and misguided. There is hope.
Globalism is a system where a cosmopolitan class of technocratic elites makes all the
decisions after talking among themselves in well-appointed conference rooms to which common
people are not given access (think of what goes on in Brussels or in the ECB tower every
day).
Democracy is something else.
In my opinion the two are mutually incompatible.
Yes, I'm talking about both British and non-British Muslims. Here's the clarification
you're looking for: ICM Research for Channel 4 found that more than 100,000 British Muslims
sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only
one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody
close to them had become involved with jihadists.
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law
in areas with large Muslim populations.
On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be
illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons.
39% of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5%
for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of
women accused of adultery.
Admittedly, this ICM survey is from 2016 so the picture may have improved, but I think
you'll agree, these attitudes are quite a long way from the enlightenment values
mentioned.
Open borders and nationalism are really different issues. One can recognise the need for
borders and border controls without convincing oneself that the people within a given
border line are therefore endowed with some common essence about which they can feel pride
or shame.
The pity about this is that liberal writers like ZW nearly always start from zero on
this issue as if there wasn't a whole mass of discussion of a very detailed kind that has
already taken place. Thus I would say that Ernest Renan's speech to the Surbonne in the
1880s published as What is a Nation? (reprinted in Shloma Sand's book On the
Nation and the 'Jewish People' ) is well in advance of ZW's musings.
I am with Einstein on this. He was once asked if he regarded himself as a German or a Jew.
He replied: "I look upon myself as a man. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the
measles of mankind".
I found ZW's suggestion that "you do not need to be proud of Oliver Cromwell in order to be
proud of Jessica Ennis-Hill" both revealing and ridiculous. If one is going to pick a
figure from English history not to be proud of why on earth would one choose Cromwell? And
on what grounds exactly does ZW feel proud of JE-H?
The Cromwell reference leads to a further point. Can the English, on ZW's argument, take
pride in the actions of Scots prior to the Act of Union? And can they take pride in the
actions of the Irish from Northern but not Southern Ireland?
I would nuance what you say just a little. Our actions contribute to producing not only
things but also people. A parent can feel justified pride in the actions of his/her
children as can a teacher in the actions of his/her pupils. There can also be a justified
sense of collective pride for people who have contributed to that collective. ZW is right
about that. She gets into a muddle when she tries to project this collective pride
backwards in time to things we could have had no part in.
People can be proud of their country , there is nothing wrong with it ,but when a country
consists of many ethnic groups and religions, identifying the country only with majority
ethno linguistic or religious group can lead to discrimination , alienation and resentment
. This has led to civil wars in many regions. Canada and Switzerland are some of the
exceptions where federal system and equalities of ethno linguistic groups have strengthened
their countries .I would call this good nationalism.
On the other hand, many countries in Asia and Africa are suffering from the conflicts due
to persecution or discrimination inflicted upon minorities from the majoritarian
governments.
Modi in India is using the nationalistic card, trying to give an impression that the
country only belongs to Hindus and Hindi speakers. In reality, India is not even a country
, it is a collection of nation states with many ethnic groups , languages and religions
which were united during the British rule. It is more diverse than the whole of Europe
.However Modi is keen to perpetuate the myth India is homogenous , this natinalistic
ideology might risk formenting divisions and conflicts in the future.I would call it 'bad
nationalism '
Aren't we looking for the word patriotism as opposed to nationalism here Mz. Williams? I've
always cleaved to Orwell's definitions of patriotism and nationalism. Predictably,
nationalism gets short shrift.....largely because nationalism is dim, divisive and utterly
undigestible for the vast majority of a nation at ease with itself. This is why Moggo,
Bojo, Foxy and Gove prefer nationalism.
I'm not the one who has a problem with neo-liberalism, it's provided for me more than
adequately. Having spent a lot of time living overseas, it's provided ALL Australians with a
far better deal than a few billion others.
If you are too naive to see this, then maybe you need to try an alternative for a while.
It's quite ok, i'll be waiting for when the alternative fails (they always do) and I can come
back and pick off the assets from the carcus of that little experiment for less than a cent
in the dollar.
The dog eat dog economy simply represents our nature, it's who we are, we thrive under
libertarianism.
Po-faced, Libertarian BOLLOCKS.
Privatisation is sucker-farming.
Milking the punters, like ants milk aphids.
Farming them, like bellbirds do with leaf-bugs.
And even THAT is only part of the equation.
The fondest goal, the one which gives the management class hard-ons ?
Privatisation de-unionises their workforces.
It is quite strange that the biggest supporters of neo-liberal economics with its belief that
giving money to the rich will solve all our problems call themselves 'Christians'.
I can't remember when Jesus preached trickle down. I don't remember the bit where Jesus
said to treat those seeking asylum and fleeing violence like they are the scum of the earth.
I don't remember when Jesus said the poor needed a good kick in the guts while they are down
to motivate them to work harder. I don't remember when Jesus said we should cut funds from
the sick to balance the budget. I don't remember Jesus saying that if you bear false witness
often enough then you will fool enough of the people enough to keep power so you can look
after your corporate buddy buddies.
In fact, almost all of the politicians in the Coalition who proclaim to be 'Christian'
must have their own secret bible because nothing I have heard from the New Testament
justifies their actions.
Me, I'm an atheist and I have more care, consideration, ethics and compassion than the
entire collection of right wing bible bashers sitting in parliament today.
Thanks for this. We need more of these articles pointing out the bullshit behind this story
that the Coalition has been feeding the gullible peasantry with for over 30 years, sneering,
smirking and sniggering as truckloads of public money goes to private corporations. The money
received from selling off public assets has been shoved into private businesses who then feel
very free to charge like bulls.
It's a shame so many folk still fall for this bullshit meaning that their own families, work
colleagues and community get shafted through diminishing public services.
They used to tell me I was building a dream
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow or guns to bear
I was always there right on the job
They used to tell me I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad, I made it run
Made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime
Once I built a tower, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle de dum
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum
Say, don't you remember, they called me Al
It was Al all the time
Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal
Buddy, can you spare a dime?
'This is more or less the definition of increased productivity and it is what ultimately
leads to improved living standards for everyone'
Lazy, neoliberal, supply-side economic guff. Neoliberals undermine government and
democracy and then scavenge on the wreckage. When does 'ultimately' begin for 'everyone'?
Never.
'Private companies provide the same service with much less labour'
Firing people is the answer? What a hardened realist you are. Must be great to be so
certain in your neoliberal convictions. Are you really telling us that every privatisation
has been a success?
These pieces of infrastructure have been built through generations of work and wise
investment - they are not any one government's to sell. It's just easier for a corrupt,
rudderless, feckless neoliberal shill to sell it than it is for them to to run it.
Can't even begin to address the characteristic Libertarian slyness in all that.
But I'll try.
"What you call neoliberalism was a set of responses to the failure of socialism or as Tony
Blair said 'what matters is what works'."
Incorrect.
What I--what the world--calls "Neoliberalism', is the corpse of Classical economics,
resurrected post-WW2 by Friedman and Hayek's 'Mont Pelerin Society. '
Why was it buried ?
Because during the Great Depression, its dogmatic insistence on continued austerity and wage
cuts only made things worse.
After all, in an economic slump, whats the worst thing you can do ?
Deprive people of whatever little purchasing power they have.
So, goodbye Classical economics.
After which, govts SPENT their societies out of slump, putting people to work.
(O, the horror ! O, the heresy !)
The public works of that era include Germany's autobahns and the US New Deal projects,
including the Tennessee Valley system and similar in Western States.
( O the horror ! O the heresy !)
Friedman, Hayek and the gang looked at those and post-WW2 programs of public benefit, such as
the UK's NHS and shat themselves. Typical fear-driven conservatives, they were convinced such
programs represented the thin end of the wedge which MUST end in imposition of Soviet-style
conditions.
What utter paranoid crap.
Their resurrected corpse of Classical economics ?.
THAT is what is 'Neoliberalism'.
Whether or not I call it so is immaterial.
Then, this lofty bit of finger-wagging assertion;
"This process of economic evolution is necessarily imperfect and incomplete...."
Your Lordship's overview is appreciated...
"....but currently leaves you free to own a computer, read news on-line, communicate using
the internet (maybe using NBN?) and express your views freely. "
Sez who ?
You ?
Besides, the only one talking about that old bogey, "socialism" is you.
Because its a conveniently perjorative label, eh ?
Pretty infantile, though.
"Anybody who doesn't agree with EVERYTHING I say, must be a 'socialist.' And they can't
play with my toys."
PS 'Adam', why do LIbertarians always project a Superiority Complex ?
Why are the buggers always so PLEASED WITH THEMSELVES ?
Neoliberalism = Socialism for the Rich - Capitalism for the Poor.
Politics needs reform, plain & simple. Fed ICAC and Integrity Commission is a good
start but it's not enough. The rules have to change too. Major decisions like privatising
services or tax handouts to the rich, shouldn't by law be allowed to get through parliament
or the senate unless the claims being made to justify them are quantifiable &
demonstrated to be in the National Interest. Currently politicians have no obligation to do
either.
e.g. claiming that jobs will be created if Penalty rates are cut = there's no way to
quantify such a BS claim and Doug Cameron got them to admit that in Senate Estimates. Even so
they were allowed to lie through their teeth and impose it anyway with no requirement to
prove their BS claims. This corporate tax handout = once again they claim it will lead to
more wealth to average Australians and more jobs but it can't be quantified or guaranteed via
regulation so it's all bullshit. The rich will hoard the wealth & kick Australians in the
guts as usual. That's what they've always done and always will do. Privatisation of
electricity..what a crock of shit. They claimed it would create competition and drive down
prices. What's happened? The complete opposite but politicians KNOW they're not accountable
and therein 'lies' the problem. The shortsheeting of the original NBN, = yet another lie.
They've totally crippled Australia's ability to compete in a digital age and completely
screwed regional 2nd tier cities and towns in terms of growth. As far as the National
interest is concerned the shortsheeting of the NBN is the complete opposite. Even so they
were allowed to bastardise that too without any accountability whatsoever. Australians need
to start demanding political reform so these bastards are accountable to the people.
Neoliberalism is just the academic name for the political ideology of greed, corruption, self
interest, self entitlement, corporate welfare, inequality, user pays, and poverty is your
fault.
Do you see any contradiction between privatised electricity and socialised stadiums?
Neoliberalism explains it all. Corruption in politics means that only profitable assets
are privatised. Stadiums lose money, so are kept in private hands as corporate welfare for
the various billionaire team owners and TV networks.
I love Richard Denniss! What a brilliantly concise and yet well supported argument. Now we
just need someone who can say it in terms that will persuade unwilling voters to think
carefully about their vote. If they do think carefully they simply cannot return this
government to power, now that they're all revealed as nothing but crony capitalists.
I must admit that like many people I also thought neoliberalism was an ideology, but then
I couldn't understand why they were so inconsistent in their spending of 'tax-payers'
funds'.
From now on I'll be pointing out those inconsistencies with more confidence - armed with
Richard's incontrovertible points, and also by a closer reading of Canadian Kean Birch's
article:
[The term neoliberalism ] is used to refer to an economic system in which the
"free" market is extended to every part of our public and personal worlds.
And here's wikipedia's definition of crony capitalism:
Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of
risks they take, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business
class and the political class.
NB But there's a more explicit definition here, which I like much better:
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business
depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be
exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special
tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
Yes, we have a spot of bother, and I think that their name - Institute of Public Affairs - is
quite a misnomer.
The way these people operate is more akin to Opus Dei and many other 'secret societies'
that have another public face altogether.
Given that IPA's agenda is a private members wish list which has a huge impact on matters
of a broad public nature, it's rather akin to incest, and we know where the confusion between
Church and State takes us regarding separation of powers, exactly where we are right now .two
Royal Commissions that are joined at the hip, Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
(2013 – 2017) and our current horror show Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation,
and Financial Services Industry which could for all intents and purposes be as long as
aforementioned.
Stay with me, as these are issues that relate to other 'energy' systems, namely money, sex
and power, and if we have any doubts as to how far this cancer has spread, a quick purview of
the following members ought to resolve it for you:
For the 70th Birthday big bash, we know that guests to the party were:
• Gina Rinehart
• Rupert Murdoch
• Tony Abbott
• George Pell - Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
• Michael Kroger - President of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia
and former director of the IPA
• Mitch Fifield - Communications Minister
Think horizontal and vertical industries/associations and you begin to get the picture,
and that's before thinking about BCA and VECCI.
First, elect the other mob next time around. They're in the pockets of the multinationals and
the US alliance as well, but they're not quite as bad, yet. The next thing is a full-on
assault on mainstream media. The frontline of the revolution, if there is to be one, is the
media. No more guns or territorial claims, it's a battle for the mind. Education is the key.
The "Neolibs" attack education at every opportunity - teachers, curriculum, funding etc. etc.
but there's nothing wrong with education - the real problem is that the mainstream media
relentlessly, all day every day works to an agenda of dis-education, deliberately undermining
and destroying the work of our schools. They preach doubt and mistrust - of learning, facts,
truth, intelligence, pure science, art, music, culture, thoughtfulness, forbearance, empathy
and altruism. They teach us to monetise and gamble on everything. Their aim is to dumb
everyone down to the point where not only can't they read an analog clock or drive their own
car but become entirely dependent on the word of authority (of which they are the mouthpiece)
for a continued existence. Today, with our vast social platforms we can target their lies and
threats, one by one. Pick each one, attack it, viciously, loudly, risibly, with facts,
comedy, derision and invitations to dance. Spread it wide. Call them out at every
opportunity. Sneer them into oblivion. Mainstream media is the primary problem. That's what
must be destroyed.
No, regrettably they have not.
The neoliberalist 'mistake' has been going on for around 40 yrs now - it has proved a
relentless descent into inequality and austerity.
Chris Bowen
at the National Press Club : "...Labor will go to the next election:
Achieving budget balance in the same year as the government;
Delivering bigger cumulative budget surpluses over forward estimates as well as substantially
bigger surpluses over the ten year medium term; and
That the majority of savings raised from our revenue measures over the medium term will go
towards budget repair and paying down debt...."
Pure neoliberal economic poison that will create further hardship for our citizens, worsen
inequality and recess the economy yet further.
People have got to come to understand that the bigger surpluses Bowen speaks of are
federal tax collection surpluses; i.e. he intends to withdraw further spending capacity from
the private sector, all while the current account deficit already draws 3.5% GDP (~$30bn) a
yr from that same heavily indebted private sector.
This Bowen statement report
from the SMH : "The whiff of a surplus, not reaching at least 1 per cent of GDP until 2026-27, does not
adequately protect Australia against the potential roiling seas of international
uncertainty," he will say.
"Australia needs bigger surpluses, sooner than the government is scheduling.
"We can't afford to let the next four years go to waste in the efforts for a healthier, safer
budget surplus."
Absolute macroeconomic stupidity, arrogant, vandalous ideological madness.
When will the people come to their senses and stop supporting such socially destructive
errant neoliberal economic alchemy?
Just look at the Citizens Assembly overseeing the law change in the recent Irish referendum.
Worked a treat, cause those involved wanted to find the bvest alternative, rather than
feather their own nest.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
Michael Greenwood , Geoff Naylor and David Murray on the failures of economic policy
While agreeing with the thrust of Paul Mason's article (
A new politics of emotion is needed to beat the far right , Journal, 26 November), it is
surely necessary to employ economics if we are to defeat neoliberalism. We have lived under
this regime, with increasing severity, for 25 years or so. The result has been the stagnation
of real incomes for the large majority, with the benefits of GDP growth accruing to those at
the top of income and wealth distributions. This has suppressed growth, as those with less
money tend to spend it and those with more hide it and avoid tax. Lower UK growth is clearly
shown in comparative data.
So if neoliberalism is a school of economics, it is a failure if the aim of economic policy
is to encourage growth and the reinvestment of the benefits. Of course, neoliberalism is not
economics, it is political dogma, supported by its beneficiaries. We need economics
undergraduates to demand to be taught real economics and not the propaganda of power that is
neoliberalism.
Michael Greenwood Manchester
• In his search for a political narrative of economic hope to counteract the rise of
rightwing populism, Paul Mason overlooks the sense of belonging that exists in faith
communities. Here, a selfless collaboration for the inclusive good of one another has never
required disruption of the free-market economy. It is just that this ethos has not been
introduced at the national economic and political levels.
Geoff Naylor Winchester, Hampshire
• All suffered the same 2007-08 financial crash, but the "UK has weakest wage growth of
wealthy nations" ( Report
, 27 November). Anything to do with Tory-led government economic policy?
David Murray Wallington, Surrey
For 40 years, the ideology popularly known as "neoliberalism" has dominated political decision-making in the English-speaking
west.
People hate
it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services, poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the
forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth
of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered
vulgar
yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources that one of its megaphones
once declared its triumph "the end of history".
... ... ...
Paul Keating's rejection
It was a year ago that a third sign first appeared, when the dark horse of Australian prime ministers, Paul Keating, made public
an on-balance rejection of neoliberal economics. Although Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser instigated Australia's first neoliberal policies,
it was Keating's architecture of privatisation and deregulation as a Labor treasurer and prime minister that's most well remembered.
Now, "we have a comatose world economy held together by debt and central bank money," Keating has said, "Liberal economics has run
into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise." What does the disavowal mean? In terms of his Labor heir Bill Shorten's growing appetite for redistributive taxation and close relationship to the union movement, it means "if Bill Shorten becomes
PM, the rule of engagement between labour and capital will be rewritten," according to The Australian this week. Can't wait!
Tony
Abbott becomes a fan of nationalising assets
Or maybe's Sukkar's right about the socialists termiting his beloved Liberal party. How else to explain the earthquake-like paradigm
shift represented by the sixth sign? Since when do neoliberal conservatives argue for the renationalisation of infrastructure, as
is the push of Tony Abbott's gang to nationalise the coal-fired Liddell power station? It may be a cynical stunt to take an unscientific
stand against climate action, but seizing the means of production remains seizing the means of production, um, comrade. "You know,
nationalising assets is what the Liberal party was founded to stop governments doing," said Turnbull, even as he hid in the dens
and in the rocks of the mountains to weather – strange coincidence –
yet another Newspoll
loss.
"new introduction to a re-released Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.
Collective, democratic political action is our only chance for freedom and enjoyment."
Might be true. But frightening that people should naively still think that democracy is to be found in the 'Dictatorship of
the Proletariat' [ ie those who know what's good for you even if you don't like it ] of the Communist Manifesto after the revelations
of what that leads to in the Gulag Archipelago , Mao's China , Pol Pot , Kim John - un .
How quickly the world forgets. - you
might just as well advocate Mein Kampf it's the same thing in the end !
That's what you claim and it might be so but I'm not interested in keeping a score on the matter. The point you failed to get
is that the people you mentioned where totalitarian thugs. They used the banner of communism to achieve their ends. They would
have used what ever ideology that was in fashion to achieve the same results.
Does present day neo-liberalism actually qualify as a political movement?
Vested interests and the dollar seem to have all the power. Lies and deception are so common the truth is seen as the enemy.
The voting public are merely fools for manipulation. Nah, neo-liberalism is not government, it is something far nastier, and clearly
not what the public vote for, presuming a vote actually counts for anything anymore.
The strong man with the dagger is followed by the weak man with the sponge." Lord
Acton
George Herbert Walker Bush died on Saturday. He was 94 years old. Thanks to decisions he made
throughout his career, thousands – perhaps millions – of people never got near 94. He
invaded Iraq in 1991, instituted sanctions that destroyed the country. He pardoned those involved
in the Iran-Contra affair and was head of the CIA when Operation Condor launched the military coup
in Argentina in 1976 .
Instead, Simon Tisdall – a mindless servant to the status quo, always happy to weave
invective about our designated enemies – treats us to paragraph after paragraph of inane
anecdotes.
Good old Georgie once gave him a lift in Air Force One.
Barbara gave him useful advice about raising Springer Spaniels.
The following words and phrases are not found anywhere in this article: CIA, Iraq,
Iran-Contra, Argentinian coup, Iran Air Flight 655, NAZI, Panama.
Rather, Tisdall refers Bush's term as "before the era of fake news". Which makes him either a
complete a liar or profoundly under-qualified to write on the subject – as the Bush-era
spawned the original fake news: The Nayirah testimony . A pack of lies told
before the Senate, and used to justify a war in the middle-east.
Bush started two wars as President. Planned and enabled countless crimes as director of the
CIA. pardoned all those implicated in the Iran-Contra affair. Refused to apologise when the US
Navy "accidentally" shot down an Iranian airliner, killing over 200 civilians, including 60
children.
He was the original neocon – his administration brought us Cheney and Powell and
Rumsfeld. Gave birth to the ideology that stage-managed 9/11, launched the "War on Terror", and
cut a blood-stained swath across North Africa and the Middle East.
We don't hear about that.
What we DO hear about is Bush's "deep sense of public duty and service" and that
"Bush was a patriot who did not need cheap slogans to express his belief in enduring American
greatness". No space is given over to analysis, to examine the fact that "belief in enduring
American greatness" is quasi-fascism, and responsible for more violent deaths this century than
any other cause you can name.
In hundreds of words, a notionally left-wing paper has nothing but praise for a highly
unpopular right-wing president. No space is given over even to the gentlest of rebukes.
The whole article is an exercise in talking without saying anything. Pleasantries replacing
truth. Platitudes where facts should be. A nothing burger, with a void on the side and an extra
order of beige.
It's an obituary of Harold Shipman that eschews murder talk and rhapsodises about his love of
gardening.
A eulogy to Pinochet that praises his economic reforms but neglects all the soccer stadiums
full of corpses.
An epitaph to Hitler that focuses, not on his "controversial political career", but on his
painting and his vegetarianism.
Did you know Genghis Khan once lent me a pencil? He was a swell guy. The world will miss
him.
We're no longer supposed to examine the lives, characters or morals of our leaders. Only
"honour their memory" and be "grateful for their service". History is presented to us, not as a
series of choices made by people in power, but as a collection of inevitabilities. Consequences
are tragic but unavoidable. Like long-dead family squabbles – To dwell on them is unseemly,
and to assign blame unfair.
Just as with John McCain, apologism and revisionism are sold to us as manners and good taste.
Attempts to redress the balance and tell the truth are met with stern glares and declarations
that it is "too soon".
It's never "too soon" to tell the truth.
John McCain was a dangerous war-mongering lunatic. George Bush Sr was a sociopath from a
family of corrupt sociopaths. The world would be a far better, and much safer place if just one
major newspaper was willing to say that.
Really, there are two obituaries to write here:
First – George HW Bush, corrupt patriarch of an old and malign family, passing out of
this world to face whatever eternal punishment (hopefully) awaits those who sell their immortal
soul in exchange for a brief taste of power.
Second – The Guardian, perhaps a decent newspaper once-upon-a-time, now a dried out
husk. A zombified slave to the state, mindless and brainless and lifeless. No questions, no
reservations, no hesitation. Obediently licking up the mess their masters leave behind.
It's sickening.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting.
Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
My mother believed it was only Bush Senior's longevity that prevented some of the neo-cons from
bumping off Bush Junior. He was President in name only and has long since fulfilled his
usefulness in committing the US to endless war. He is prone to verbal gaffes and that must make
him a liability, and when powerful evil people get nervous they often turn deadly.
Cut&Pasted from Lavrov interview in today's Saker Vineyard:
Question: When the death of President George H.W. Bush was announced, President Putin
expressed his condolences in a very emotional message. George Bush Sr. believed that one of the
worst mistakes of his presidency was failure to prevent the Soviet Union's dissolution. Did you
meet with him? What are your impressions of him?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe that George Bush Sr greatly contributed to the development of the
United States and ensured that his country responsibly played its role in the world,
considering its weight in international affairs.
I remember very well how President George H.W. Bush visited Moscow, and then he went to
Ukraine where he encouraged the Soviet republics' political forces to do their duty by
preserving the country rather than create huge, tragic problems for millions of people who
became citizens of different states the morning after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Mr Bush was a great politician. I believe that every word that will be said about his
achievements reflect the people's true attitude to this man. However, one comment about the
link between President Bush and the demise of the Soviet Union. I heard a commentator say that
George Bush Sr made history by helping Mikhail Gorbachev soft-land the Soviet Union. In fact,
George Bush Sr never did that; he simply wanted to protect millions of people from political
games. This is what we can say confidently about him.
It was German journalist, Udo Ulfkotte actually spilled the beans regarding the western media
in his best seller, Journalisten Gekaufte, (Bought Journalists). Ulfkotte described the degree
to which the CIA has penetrated the western media and corrupted, or bribed ( including himself)
the system which has become a PR organization for the intelligence services, and MIC. On
publication it immediately sold 120,000.00 copies and then strangely became unavailable in
English. He was described as a 'conspiracy theorist' (but of course) and died at the relatively
young age of a heart attack at 56. There are some salient issues surrounding his death raised
by Jonas Schneider in his book 'The Mysterious Death of Udo Ulfkotte: Evidence for a Murder.
You know already what I will respond to this. And I know already what you will say in return.
So, instead of getting into a back and forth about it, I will simply leave you with something
to consider.
The fact that each successive report that comes out that refutes the claims of the truther
movement is automatically dismissed by people like you shows how conspiracy theory thinking
works. The final 9/11 report comes out in 2004 and, of course, the truthers dismiss it
because it was written by a branch of the federal government who you believe perpetrated 9/11
in the first place. Then Popular Mechanics publishes a 5,500 word report in 2005 extensively
answering and debunking the movement claims.
Here, you people can't claim that it was a government cover-up -- at least not directly --
because Popular Mechanics is a privately owned publication. Therefore, new sub-conspiracy
theories are invented to "prove" how Popular Mechanics is part of the cover-up. To give just
one example Christopher Bollyn "claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering
magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young
researcher on the magazine's staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal
conspiracy with its coverage." (Slate 2011) Here we are seeing the kind of incredible mental
contortion that truthers are willing to engage in to continue believing their theories.
Then in 2008 the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the final
installment of its study into the causes behind the collapse of the buildings -- $16 million
was invested into the investigation. And, as I well know, you and other truthers will have a
smart Alec come-back as to why the NIST report is wrong, its authors are part of the vast
conspiracy and so on. On and on it goes no matter how many reports are published by however
many experts.
Again, I am not interested in getting dragged into a back-and-forth about the merits and
demerits of these reports. Rather, I wish to point out the flawed reasoning inherent to 9/11
trutherism: that it has its own internal mechanisms for discounting any evidence that
contradicts its central tenets. It therefore constitutes a closed system of thought because
there is nothing that would ever count as a refutation. In other words, for all contradictory
evidence another explanation is made to retroactively fit the latest gap in the theory that
is exposed.
Now, I know full well that this is probably not going to change your mind either. And I'm
sure that there will be plenty of responses to this comment and thumbs down from Off-Guardian
readers. But I hope that you at least consider whether you are wrong about this subject. For
my part, I worry that 9/11 trutherism obscures what are indeed important subjects -- US
imperialism, US govt. corruption, the nefarious influence of the CIA, the legitimate
grievance that people in the Middle East have against the US, Israel, the Saudi dictatorship
and so on. Above all, I worry that 9/11 trutherism makes it open season for the real enemies
-- the US foreign policy establishment, et cetera -- to portray the resistance to them and
their agenda as a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes. I feel strongly that the left
needs to jettison this in-group, conspiracy theory-type stuff really become a major force and
overturn the status quo.
People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps
capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch
of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".
Even NIST eventually admitted that WTC-7 free-fell for 2.5 seconds. That can only happen
if all the support columns fail at exactly the same time; otherwise it would topple over
sideways. Only controlled explosives can make that happen.
Your touching faith in the word of ruling-class "experts", over the evidence of your own
eyes, and basic physics, is a credit to the Middle Ages. It would warm the hearts of the
Catholic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew, as a
matter of revealed truth, that what he said couldn't possibly be true.
What do the claims of a bunch of tinfoil-hat-wearing fruitcakes count for, against not
just ruling class dogma, but the entire weight of respectable middle-class opinion? The
social status and careers of millions of right-thinking professionals, like you, depend on
believing, or at least pretending to believe, not just the 9/11 Official Story, but all the
other Official Stories as well. How could all those comfy middle-class people, with their
comfy middle-class careers and high-status friends, be wrong? That would throw the entire
plan for next weekend's dinner party into question.
Do you believe the Offical Skripal Story? The Official ISIS story? The Official Syrian
Chemical Weapons Story? The Official JFK Assassination Story? The Official USS Liberty Story?
The Official Tonkin Gulf Story? How do you decide which Official Stories to believe, except
on the basis of careerism and status-seeking?
Again, I am not interested in getting drawn into a back-and-forth about the various claims of
9/11 truthers like yourself. I would just like to make one comment and then leave two things
for yourself and other truthers on here to consider.
First, I would like to comment upon the fact that I have been subjected to some rather
nasty personalized abuse on this thread simply for challenging the claims of trutherism. I'm
not pointing this out to feel aggrieved or to search for sympathy or to make myself out as
some kind of victim. Rather I do so to illustrate how it is indicative of the negative and
mind-closing effects of the group-think and the conspiracy theorist mind-set. It goes
something like this: "everyone who questions the tenets of the great truther theory is the
enemy, not just a skeptic but rather a collaborator in the evil system that suppresses the
"truth"."
The people it discusses were truthers and many of them reexamined their beliefs after
being confronted by actual specialists on the subjects basing their truther beliefs on. If
you are open-minded as you claim to be, then have the decency to at least read the article
and consider its points, rather than just reflexively rejecting the source as part of the
great cover-up.
Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky. Now, I am well aware
that you think Chomsky is a sell-out for not getting on board with trutherism and that you
have all kinds of fancy come-backs as to why he is wrong. But he raises a very important
issue of priorities for people on the anti-imperialist left to consider. Is this obsession
with this issue really helping us to fight against imperialism and all of the other
iniquities of the world? I think not:
"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of
energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their
institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be,
if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is
treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and
activist work." Noam Chomsky
Ah "truther", that neologism which serves the same purpose as the recasting of the term
"conspiracy" to designate foolishness, gullibilty etc.
And as for Chomsky, well here's what he had to say about the 9/11 "inside job" theory:
"And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any
significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out
who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why
does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"
Let's just consider that for a moment. Chomsky is considering the possibilty -- however
remote in his view -- that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he's saying it
doesn't have any significance that the US goverment carried out an attack on its own
population! It doesn't have any significance that the "war on terror" was launched on the
basis of a lie!
This is the moment when Chomsky truly stood revealed. He was like the kid with his hand in
the cookie jar who instantly concocts any number of excuses all of which contradict each
other. And yet even when caught out like this, he has his supporters who say he "dispels 9/11
theories with sheer logic"!
That's the one. I mean – who knows and who cares? It's not as if a terrorist attack on
mainland America that altered the face of New York and launched a war across the world is
actually important.
Well, I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept
these 9/11 truther ideas -- even amongst people who generally agree with your (and my) kind
of politics. George Galloway, who like Chomsky is about as far politically from the neocons
as you can get, has also spoken very eloquently against trutherism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5ToK6g0m8
Ironically, the only remotely public figure who does that I've heard mentioned on this
thread is some Reaganite crank that I had never heard of until now. That really does not bode
well for you, does it?
And having now listened to Mr Galloway and once again having to put up with his portentous
stretching out ..of the ..sentence to -- quite frankly pad the time out, I see that his
"points" come down to the following:
Two planes flew into the twin towers. Yes -- there's no disputing that one.
GW Bush could not possibly have planned the thing himself. Yes again -- no dispute. At
this point I must express my gratitude to Reagan for finally proving that the guy in front is
just a puppet.
If the US did it themselves and it "got out" it would be the end of America's credibility.
Yes indeed. Which is why, all across the mainstream press, it will only ever be presented as
a "nutty conspiracy theory"
Galloway: "I saw, myself, the airplanes hitting the twin towers."
-- which is supposed to constitute proof of the official
Evil-Terrorists-In-A-Cave-In-Afghanistan story.
attention, "flaxgirl": your grand unified theory of 9/11 now needs to incorporate George
Galloway as a fake witness for the US government, which seems strange, given his decades of
opposition, both before and after, to the imperial warfare for which 9/11 served as a
pretext.
The political function of the No-Planes-At-WTC claims could not be more clear; it's so
that people who dispute other aspects of the Official Story can all be dismissed as deranged
idiots.
But Peter you need to look at the evidence for yourself and not take others' word for it. And
be guided by those who know how buildings collapse -- Chomsky certainly doesn't.
This is a wonderful tutorial by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth.
The story of 9/11 is utterly preposterous. The only reason people believe it is to do with
psychology of how we relate to power nothing to do with the actuality of the story -- because
it's utterly ludicrous.
Wut? " less violent ones like England, the US or France " From here on it just gets worse
until Chomsky has no credible position left to argue from.
Heightened sense of cognitive dissonance by old Noam.
' even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, then who cares? It doesn't have any
significance."
Wow, for someone with such intellect this is some low-level thinking. I almost feel sorry
for Chomsky for holding such an immoral position. Would he feel the same way if his wife was
murdered? "Ah, there's other things to worry about, anything else is a diversion of energy."
Very sad.
Where basic physics is concerned we should not speak of theory. The only possible explanation
for the collapse of the buildings is controlled demolition. There is no doubt whatsoever that
9/11 was an inside conspiracy. There is also no doubt that death and injury were staged
– at least, there is zero evidence of its reality in the visual record and one would
think that for the 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured claimed there would be at least one piece of
evidence for their reality, rather than every piece (anomalously small in number) in the
visual record perfectly fitting "staged". Not to mention other anomalies unrelated to the
visual record and that actual killing and injuring of people by the perpetrators would take a
highly-problematic form in the shape of a great number of loved ones (as opposed to the tiny
number presented) and the injured themselves when controlled demolition was so obvious.
When you say that there is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy, I feel you
are being overconfident unless what you are saying is that there is some evidence that some
figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge.
Frankly, although we all have our theories as to who was responsible, I remain in full
agreement with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth who state simply that the official
account conflicts with physics. All else is suspicion and supposition. It may well be well
grounded supposition, but until we discover who planned and executed the event and who
definitely had foreknowledge, what we are dealing with is speculation.
The problem with that is that the great many people who refuse to believe anything other
than the official account of 9/11 dismiss our views as those of cranks
The buildings came down by controlled demolition. The evidence for that is
incontrovertible and the rationale presented by NIST for fire being the cause is demonstrably
not based on a skerrick of evidence and is obviously fraudulent and false. There is not a
single reason to suspect that the cause of collapse of all the buildings wasn't controlled
demolition. If you believe there is a single reason to suspect another cause can you please
provide it.
Since waking up to 9/11, I find that people either decide something is something with too
little evidence or refrain from deciding on what something is when the evidence is so
overwhelming you're practically drowning in it. Being conservative in judgement in the face
of overwhelming evidence is no virtue in my opinion.
I have engaged in conversation with Mick West who runs the metabunk.org website that
allegedly debunks all the conspiracy theories. We have gone back and forth a number of times
over the cause of WTC-7's collapse and I have invited him to respond to an Occam's Razor
challenge to provide 10 points that favour "fire" over "controlled demolition". He did not
respond to the challenge, nor could he provide a single point that favours fire over
controlled demolition. Not a single point -- didn't change his mind though. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
Nor has anyone responded to my other Occam's Razor challenges. I judge when I see that
there is a reasonable amount of evidence and that evidence points all one way and there is no
evidence pointing any other way. If you disagree with this method fair enough.
And just to add, that, of course, it must be an inside job in the case of controlled
demolition. As Graeme MacQueen says, there is no room in the official story for controlled
demolition.
The big secret is though that death and injury were staged. That's the real secret.
It was a totally excellent piece. No reservations.
"Theory"? Are you serious? If you believe that 9/11 was the work of 19 barely-trained
terrorists (one of whom cried when asked to do steep turns and stalls according to his
alleged flying instructor but was tasked with the most impossibly-expert manoeuvre of doing a
330 degree turn into the Pentagon), armed with boxcutters who managed to hijack 4 planes,
navigate them into 3 iconic buildings without being molested by a single fighter interceptor
through the most defended airspace on earth, which subsequently caused the 10-second
collapses (displaying all the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of
fire-caused collapses) of three high-rise steel frame buildings, here's a $5,000 challenge
for you. All you have to do is provide 10 points that support the "fire" hypothesis over the
"controlled demolition" hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7 and you can choose your own
structural engineer to validate your points. There's so very much material on the collapse it
shouldn't be very difficult. In fact, all you have to do is come up with one point to support
WTC-7's collapse by fire and I'll give you $5,000. One point -- validated by a structural
engineer of your choice. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
9/11 is probably the biggest hoax in history and includes the very clever subhoax of 3,000
dead and 6,000 injured. Not only was it a hoax but they did not aim for realism in any shape
or form and gave us extra clues in addition to their preposterous
against-physical-and-administrative-reality story.
This is what Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, who has
had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business, has to say
about 9/11. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/
According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security
State of the World's Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only
with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was
dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.
That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.
The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get intercepter jet fighters
into the air.
The National Security Council failed.
All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America's NATO and Israeli
allies.
Air Traffic Control failed.
Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of
such a failure is zero.
If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House,
from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held
accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.
Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families' demands for an
investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the
government's account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of
the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were
told to the commission, and that the commission "was set up to fail." The worst security
failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.
Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.
The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots.
The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and
follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in "the land of the free."
Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit
denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for
Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed
that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted
the White House's story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal
failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden's
hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden's death in December 2001 went down the memory
hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in
Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said
to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.
The fairy tale story of bin Laden's murder by Seal Team Six served to end the challenge by
disappointed Democrats to Obama's nomination for a second term. It also freed the "war on
terror" from the bin Laden constraint. Washington wanted to attack Libya, Syria, and Iran,
countries in which bin Laden was known not to have organizations, and the succession of faked
bin Laden videos, in which bin Laden grew progressively younger as the fake bin Laden claimed
credit for each successive attack, had lost credibility among experts.
Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were
not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House
had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history
to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a
coverup.
After 13 years people at home and abroad find the government's story less believable.
The case made by independent experts is now so compelling that mainstream media has opened to
it. Here is Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec#t=23
"... It is also a nice illustration of how "Westminster Style" democracy works. Any chance that the electorate might elect a left wing government and you get a Zinoviev letter or a Bologna railway station bombing. ..."
"... In other words "Elect whom you like". ("Provided we like them too!") It's really a bit like herding sheep. ..."
The documents reveal him as Alexis Bellegarde, one of four White Russian aristocrats believed
to have been behind an infamous forgery 15 years before the war began. The revelations of Bellegarde's
importance to MI6 will increase suspicions that British agents had a hand in the production of the
"Zinoviev letter"; its leak to the Daily Mail many believe cost Labour the 1924 general election.
foolisholdman -> Brian Milne 11 Oct 2015 05:55
Brian Milne
It is also a nice illustration of how "Westminster Style" democracy works. Any chance that
the electorate might elect a left wing government and you get a Zinoviev letter or a Bologna railway
station bombing.
In other words "Elect whom you like". ("Provided we like them too!") It's really a bit
like herding sheep.
AlbertTatlock53 -> LordUpminster 11 Oct 2015 08:35
Despite the blandness of the OH volumes on Ultra, some facts did leak out, like having a month's
notice of the Italian declaration of war and useful tactical and operational details like the
positions of wolf packs. It also reminded me of a couple of anecdotes about Ultra information
by unwitting sources in memoirs. I wouldn't deprecate Ultra or the British war effort that far.
The British army that went to Normandy was the most mechanised and armoured army in history and
pulled rather more than its own weight in the coalition. The principal offensive weapon of the
British empire was Bomber Command, which in the spring-summer of 1943 began to devastate the German
war economy.
The Soviet and then the US contributions to the war dwarfed the British empire but only relatively,
it was still a superpower in 1945, though by the Suez crime it had become a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Murder Inc.
LordUpminster ID7678903 11 Oct 2015 04:04
And no doubt the establishment will continue to play such dirty tricks to undermine our
so called democracy
Not the slightest: according to our friend jamesforysthe below that's essentially what they're
for.
Re. the Zinoviev letter, I did see one theory many years ago that the man behind it was the
then-Polish Army Minister Władysław Sikorski, the one who later headed the Polish exile government
in London and was killed in an air crash. Certainly in October 1924 he was bragging to people
in governmental circles in Warsaw that it was his agents who had arranged it - though why exactly
is not easy to see, given that Poland had no particular political interest in Britain at the time.
I suspect that it was empty boasting, and that it was Russian emigrés who were responsible.
Coming up soon: conclusive proof that Jeremy Corbyn was once an agent of the Tsarist Okhrana.
Brian Milne 11 Oct 2015 04:00
Had Labour won, thus Baldwin, MacDonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain probably not have been the course
of politics, would the UK necessarily have moved further left? The question remains to be seen,
but unless somebody more genuinely socialist had replaced MacDonald probably not. However, the
outcome may well have been a far more amicable relationship with the Soviet Union, the Versailles
Treaty and League of Nations possibly better conformed to and the rise of Hitler less likely.
The Zinoviev letter may well have been as much a contributory denominator in that than is implied.
Of course, we hall never know really, only historians expounding their own theories and interpretations
of history.
samuel glover -> jamesforsythe 11 Oct 2015 01:43
"Some brilliant espionage across the Middle-east and Israel is precisely what's needed
to bring these politically infantile areas into western like democratic administrations, this
century, not next. And with fewer wars. "
First, you think western intelligence agencies **haven't** been prominent in the history of
that region?!?!?
Second, you think these same agencies are capable of just whipping up entire social and political
structures and cultures on demand? Do you read newspapers?
Remember that these agencies -- in America, in Britain, in every NATO country -- spent decades
and billions of dollars and billions of man-hours staring obsessively at the USSR. EVERY ONE of
them was completely blindsided when the Soviet Union folded up.
error418 -> jamesforsythe 10 Oct 2015 23:21
"Our" best interests or that intelligence service´s best interests? ISI in Pakistan is a good
example of such a service gone rogue. Experts in election rigging.
Frisco27 10 Oct 2015 19:06
"Sexing up" documents? What a scumbag... That would never happen these days.
"... Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market. ..."
"... The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension fund go? ..."
"... Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled. Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership. ..."
"... family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300 to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery. ..."
"... Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo. ..."
"... Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs. ..."
"... So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context. ..."
"... Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this. I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via the capitalist countries. ..."
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality. They still struggle
for access to the basics
... ... ...
The disparities in wealth that we term "income inequality" are no accident, and they can't be fixed by fiddling at the edges of
our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom.
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access
to the most basic tools of life are almost nil.
... ... ...
Too often, the answer by those who have hoarded everything is they will choose to "give back" in a manner of their choosing –
just look at Mark Zuckerberg and his much-derided plan to "give away" 99% of his Facebook stock. He is unlikely to help change inequality
or poverty any more than "giving away" of $100m helped children in Newark schools.
Allowing any of the 100 richest Americans to choose how they fix "income inequality" will not make the country more equal or even
guarantee more access to life. You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools, even when you're the master; but more
to the point, who would tear down his own house to distribute the bricks among so very many others?
mkenney63 5 Dec 2015 20:37
Excellent article. The problems we face are structural and can only be solved by making fundamental changes. We must bring
an end to "Citizens United", modern day "Jim Crow" and the military industrial complex in order to restore our democracy. Then
maybe, just maybe, we can have an economic system that will treat all with fairness and respect. Crony capitalism has had its
day, it has mutated into criminality.
Kencathedrus -> Marcedward 5 Dec 2015 20:23
In the pre-capitalist system people learnt crafts to keep themselves afloat. The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Now
we have the church of Education promising a better life if we get into debt to buy (sorry, earn) degrees.
The whole system is messed up and now we have millions of people on this planet who can't function even those with degrees.
Barbarians are howling at the gates of Europe. The USA is rotting from within. As Marx predicted the Capitalists are merely paying
their own grave diggers.
mkenney63 -> Bobishere 5 Dec 2015 20:17
I would suggest you read the economic and political history of the past 30 years. To help you in your study let me recommend
a couple of recent books: "Winner Take all Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson and "The Age of Acquiescence" by Steve Fraser.
It always amazes me that one can be so blind the facts of recent American history; it's not just "a statistical inequality", it's
been a well thought-out strategy over time to rig the system, a strategy engaged in by politicians and capitalists. Shine some
light on this issue by acquainting yourself with the facts.
Maharaja Brovinda -> Singh Jill Harrison 5 Dec 2015 19:42
We play out the prisoner's dilemma in life, in general, over and over in different circumstances, every day. And we always
choose the dominant - rational - solution. But the best solution is not based on rationality, but rather on trust and faith in
each other - rather ironically for our current, evidence based society!
Steven Palmer 5 Dec 2015 19:19
Like crack addicts the philanthropricks only seek to extend their individual glory, social image their primary goal, and yet
given the context they will burn in history. Philanthroptits should at least offset the immeasurable damage they have done through
their medieval wealth accumulation. Collaborative philanthropy for basic income is a good idea, but ye, masters tools.
BlairM -> Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 19:10
Well, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all those other economic
systems that have been tried from time to time.
I'd rather just have the freedom to earn money as I please, and if that means inequality, it's a small price to pay for not
having some feudal lord or some party bureaucrat stomping on my humanity.
brusuz 5 Dec 2015 18:52
As long as wealth can be created by shuffling money from one place to another in the giant crap shoot we call our economy,
nothing will change. Until something takes place to make it advantageous for the investor capitalists to put that money to work
doing something that actually produces some benefit to the society as a whole, they will continue their extractive machinations.
I see nothing on the horizon that is going to change any of that, and to cast this as some sort of a racial issue is quite superficial.
We have all gotten the shaft, since there is no upward mobility available to anyone. Since the Bush crowd of neocons took power,
we have all been shackled with "individual solutions to societal created problems."
Jimi Del Duca 5 Dec 2015 18:31
Friends, Capitalism is structural exploitation of ALL WORKERS. Thinking about it as solely a race issue is divisive. What we
need is CLASS SOLIDARITY and ORGANIZATION. See iww.org We are the fighting union with no use for capitalists!
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 18:04
You'd be better off reading Marx if you want to understand capitalism. I think you are ascribing the word to what you think
it should be rather than what it is.
It is essentially a class structure rather than any defined economic system. Neoliberal is essentially laissez faire capitalism.
It is designed to suborn nation states to corporate benefit.
AmyInNH -> tommydog
They make $40 a month. Working 7 days a week. At least 12 hour days. Who's fed you that "we're doing them a favor" BS?
And I've news for you regarding "Those whose skills are less adaptable to doing so are seeing their earnings decline." We have
many people who have 3 masters degrees making less than minimum wage. We have top notch STEM students shunned so corporations
can hire captive/cheaper foreign labor, called H1-Bs, who then wait 10 years working for them waiting for their employment based
green card. Or "visiting" students here on J1 visas, so the employers can get out of paying: social security, federal unemployment
insurance, etc.
Wake up and smell the coffee tommydog. They've more than a thumb on the scale.
I am a socialist. I decided to read this piece to see if Mr. Thrasher could write about market savagery without propounding the
fiction that whites are somehow exempt from the effects of it.
No, he could not. I clicked on the link accompanying his assertion
that whites who are high school dropouts earn more than blacks with college degrees, and I read the linked piece in full. The
linked piece does not in fact compare income (i.e., yearly earnings) of white high school dropouts with those of black college
graduates, but it does compare family wealth across racial cohorts (though not educational ones), and the gap there is indeed
stark, with average white family wealth in the six figures (full disclosure, I am white, and my personal wealth is below zero,
as I owe more in student loans than I own, so perhaps I am not really white, or I do not fully partake of "whiteness," or whatever),
and average black family wealth in the four figures.
The reason for this likely has a lot to do with home ownership disparities, which in turn are linked in significant part to
racist redlining practices. So white dropouts often live in homes their parents or grandparents bought, while many black college
graduates whose parents were locked out of home ownership by institutional racism and, possibly, the withering of manufacturing
jobs just as the northward migration was beginning to bear some economic fruit for black families, are still struggling to become
homeowners. Thus, the higher average wealth for the dropout who lives in a family owned home.
But this is not what Mr. Thrasher wrote. He specifically used the words "earn more," creating the impression that some white
ignoramus is simply going to stumble his way into a higher salary than a cultivated, college educated black person. That is simply
not the case, and the difference does matter.
Why does it matter? Because I regularly see middle aged whites who are broken and homeless on the streets of the town where
I live, and I know they are simply the tip of a growing mountain of privation. Yeah, go ahead, call it white tears if you want,
but if you cannot see that millions (including, of course, not simply folks who are out and out homeless, but folks who are struggling
to get enough to eat and routinely go without needed medication and medical care) of people who have "white privilege" are indeed
oppressed by global capitalism then I would say that you are, at the end of the day, NO BETTER THAN THE WHITES YOU DISDAIN.
If you have read this far, then you realize that I am in no way denying the reality of structural racism. But an account of
economic savagery that entirely subsumes it into non-economic categories (race, gender, age), that refuses to acknowledge that
blacks can be exploiters and whites can be exploited, is simply conservatism by other means. One gets the sense that if we have
enough black millionaires and enough whites dying of things like a lack of medical care, then this might bring just a little bit
of warmth to the hearts of people like Mr. Thrasher.
Call it what you want, but don't call it progressive. Maybe it is historical karma. Which is understandable, as there is no
reason why globally privileged blacks in places like the U.S. or Great Britain should bear the burden of being any more selfless
or humane than globally privileged whites are or have been. The Steven Thrashers of humanity are certainly no worse than many
of the whites they cannot seem to recognize as fully human are.
But nor are they any better.
JohnLG 5 Dec 2015 17:23
I agree that the term "income inequality" is so vague that falls between useless and diversionary, but so too is most use of
the word "capitalism", or so it seems to me. Typically missing is a penetrating analysis of where the problem lies, a comprehensibly
supported remedy, or large-scale examples of anything except what's not working. "Income inequality" is pretty abstract until
we look specifically at the consequences for individuals and society, and take a comprehensive look at all that is unequal. What
does "capitalism" mean? Is capitalism the root of all this? Is capitalism any activity undertaken for profit, or substantial monopolization
of markets and power?
Power tends to corrupt. Money is a form of power, but there are others. The use of power to essentially cheat, oppress or kill
others is corrupt, whether that power is in the form of a weapon, wealth, the powers of the state, or all of the above. Power
is seductive and addictive. Even those with good intensions can be corrupted by an excess of power and insufficient accountability,
while predators are drawn to power like sharks to blood. Democracy involves dispersion of power, ideally throughout a whole society.
A constitutional democracy may offer protection even to minorities against a "tyranny of the majority" so long as a love of justice
prevails. Selective "liberty and justice" is not liberty and justice at all, but rather a tyranny of the many against the few,
as in racism, or of the few against the many, as by despots. Both forms reinforce each other in the same society, both are corrupt,
and any "ism" can be corrupted by narcissism. To what degree is any society a shining example of government of, for, and by the
people, and to what degree can one discover empirical evidence of corruption? What do we do about it?
AmyInNH -> CaptainGrey 5 Dec 2015 17:15
You're too funny. It's not "lifting billions out of poverty". It's moving malicious manufacturing practices to the other side
of the planet. To the lands of no labor laws. To hide it from consumers. To hide profits.
And it is dying. Legislatively they choke off their natural competition, which is an essential element of capitalism. Monopoly
isn't capitalism. And when they bribe legislators, we don't have democracy any more either.
Jeremiah2000 -> Teresa Trujillo 5 Dec 2015 16:53
Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out
your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market.
The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension
fund go?
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:45
Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government
also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled.
Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency
of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.
The words "OWN" and "ASSETS" are the key descriptors of the definition of wealth. But these words are not well understood by
the vast majority of Americans or for that matter, global citizens. They are limited to the vocabulary used by the wealthy ownership
class and financial publications, which are not widely read, and not even taught in our colleges and universities.
The wealthy ownership class did not become wealthy because they are "three times as smart." Still there is a valid argument
that the vast majority of Americans do not pay particular attention to the financial world and educate themselves on wealth building
within the current system's limited past-savings paradigm. Significantly, the wealthy OWNERSHIP class use their political power
(power always follows property OWNERSHIP) to write the system rules to benefit and enhance their wealth. As such they have benefited
from forging trade policy agreements which further concentrate OWNERSHIP on a global scale, military-industrial complex subsidies
and government contracts, tax code provisions and loopholes and collective-bargaining rules – policy changes they've used their
wealth to champion.
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:44
Unfortunately, when it comes to recommendations for solutions to economic inequality, virtually every commentator, politician
and economist is stuck in viewing the world in one factor terms – human labor, in spite of their implied understanding that the
rich are rich because they OWN the non-human means of production – physical capital. The proposed variety of wealth-building programs,
like "universal savings accounts that might be subsidized for low-income savers," are not practical solutions because they rely
on savings (a denial of consumption which lessens demand in the economy), which the vast majority of Americans do not have, and
for those who can save their savings are modest and insignificant. Though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through
the "stock market exchanges," purchased with their earnings as labor workers (savings), their stock holdings are relatively minuscule,
as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners. Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans
own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent
of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don't affect the incomes of most retirees.
As for taxpayer-supported saving subsidies or other wage-boosting measures, those who have only their labor power and its precarious
value held up by coercive rigging and who desperately need capital ownership to enable them to be capital workers (their productive
assets applied in the economy) as well as labor workers to have a way to earn more income, cannot satisfy their unsatisfied needs
and wants and sufficiently provide for themselves and their families. With only access to labor wages, the 99 percenters will
continue, in desperation, to demand more and more pay for the same or less work, as their input is exponentially replaced by productive
capital.
As such, the vast majority of American consumers will continue to be strapped to mounting consumer debt bills, stagnant wages
and inflationary price pressures. As their ONLY source of income is through wage employment, economic insecurity for the 99 percent
majority of people means they cannot survive more than a week or two without a paycheck. Thus, the production side of the economy
is under-nourished and hobbled as a result, because there are fewer and fewer "customers with money." We thus need to free economic
growth from the slavery of past savings.
I mentioned that political power follows property OWNERSHIP because with concentrated capital asset OWNERSHIP our elected representatives
are far too often bought with the expectation that they protect and enhance the interests of the wealthiest Americans, the OWNERSHIP
class they too overwhelmingly belong to.
Many, including the author of this article, have concluded that with such a concentrated OWNERSHIP stronghold the wealthy have
on our politics, "it's hard to see where this cycle ends." The ONLY way to reverse this cycle and broaden capital asset OWNERSHIP
universally is a political revolution. (Bernie Sanders, are you listening?)
The political revolution must address the problem of lack of demand. To create demand, the FUTURE economy must be financed
in ways that create new capital OWNERS, who will benefit from the full earnings of the FUTURE productive capability of the American
economy, and without taking from those who already OWN. This means significantly slowing the further concentration of capital
asset wealth among those who are already wealthy and ensuring that the system is reformed to promote inclusive prosperity, inclusive
opportunity, and inclusive economic justice.
yamialwaysright 5 Dec 2015 16:13
I was interested and in agreement until I read about structured racism. Many black kidsin the US grow up without a father in
the house. They turn to anti-social behaviour and crime. Once you are poor it is hard to get out of being poor but Journalists
are not doing justice to a critique of US Society if they ignore the fact that some people behave in a self-destructive way. I
would imagine that if some black men in the US and the UK stuck with one woman and played a positive role in the life of their
kids, those kids would have a better chance at life. People of different racial and ethnic origin do this also but there does
seem to be a disproportionate problem with some black US men and some black UK men. Poverty is one problem but growing up in poverty
and without a father figure adds to the problem.
What the author writes applies to other countries not just the US in relation to the super wealthy being a small proportion
of the population yet having the same wealth as a high percentage of the population. This in not a black or latino issue but a
wealth distribution issue that affects everyone irrespective of race or ethnic origin. The top 1%, 5% or 10% having most of the
wealth is well-known in many countries.
nuthermerican4u 5 Dec 2015 15:59
Capitalism, especially the current vulture capitalism, is dog eat dog. Always was, always will be. My advice is that if you
are a capitalist that values your heirs, invest in getting off this soon-to-be slag heap and find other planets to pillage and
rape. Either go all out for capitalism or reign in this beast before it kills all of us.
soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:32
Our antiquated class structure demonstrates the trickle up of Capitalism and the need to counterbalance it with progressive
taxation.
In the 1960s/1970s we used high taxes on the wealthy to counter balance the trickle up of Capitalism and achieved much greater
equality.
Today we have low taxes on the wealthy and Capitalism's trickle up is widening the inequality gap.
We are cutting benefits for the disabled, poor and elderly so inequality can get wider and the idle rich can remain idle.
They have issued enough propaganda to make people think it's those at the bottom that don't work.
Every society since the dawn of civilization has had a Leisure Class at the top, in the UK we call them the Aristocracy and
they have been doing nothing for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone
else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
The system itself provides for the idle rich and always has done from the first civilisations right up to the 21st Century.
The rich taking from the poor is always built into the system, taxes and benefits are the counterbalance that needs to be applied
externally.
Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 15:31
I often chuckle when I read some of the right wing comments on articles such as this. Firstly, I question if readers actually
read the article references I've highlighted, before rushing to comment.
Secondly, the comments are generated by cifers who probably haven't set the world alight, haven't made a difference in their
local community, they'll have never created thousands of jobs in order to reward themselves with huge dividends having and as
a consequence enjoy spectacular asset/investment growth, at best they'll be chugging along, just about keeping their shit together
and yet they support a system that's broken, other than for the one percent, of the one percent.
A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies issued this week analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans
and found that "the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the
United States". That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking
around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.
Similarly, the report also stated that "the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino
population" of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more
money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.
family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300
to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans
to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:26
It is the 21st Century and most of the land in the UK is still owned by the descendants of feudal warlords that killed people
and stole their land and wealth.
When there is no land to build houses for generation rent, land ownership becomes an issue.
David Cameron is married into the aristocracy and George Osborne is a member of the aristocracy, they must both be well acquainted
with the Leisure Class.
I can't find any hard work going on looking at the Wikipedia page for David Cameron's father-in-law. His family have been on
their estate since the sixteenth century and judging by today's thinking, expect to be on it until the end of time.
George Osborne's aristocratic pedigree goes back to the Tudor era:
"he is an aristocrat with a pedigree stretching back to early in the Tudor era. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, is the
17th holder of a hereditary baronetcy that has been passed from father to son for 10 generations, and of which George is next
in line."
If we have people at the bottom who are not working the whole of civilisation will be turned on its head.
"The modern industrial society developed from the barbarian tribal society, which featured a leisure class supported
by subordinated working classes employed in economically productive occupations. The leisure class is composed of people exempted
from manual work and from practicing economically productive occupations, because they belong to the leisure class."
The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, by Thorstein Veblen. It was written a long time ago but
much of it is as true today as it was then. The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight.
DBChas 5 Dec 2015 15:13
"income inequality" is best viewed as structural capitalism. It's not as if, did black and brown people and female people somehow
(miraculously) attain the economic status of the lower-paid, white, male person, the problem would be solved--simply by adjusting
pay scales. The problem is inherent to capitalism, which doesn't mean certain "types" of people aren't more disadvantaged for
their "type." No one is saying that. For capitalists, it's easier to rationalize the obscene unfairness (only rich people say,
"life's not fair") when their "type" is regarded as superior to a different "type," whether that be with respect to color or gender
or both.
Over time--a long time--the dominant party (white males since the Dark Ages, also the life-span of capitalism coincidentally
enough) came to dominance by various means, too many to try to list, or even know of. Why white males? BTW, just because most
in power and in money are white males does not mean ALL white males are in positions of power and wealth. Most are not, and these
facts help to fog the issue.
Indeed, "income inequality," is not an accident, nor can it be fixed, as the author notes, by tweaking (presumably he means
capitalism). And he's quite right too in saying, "You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools..." I take that
ALSO to mean, the problem can't be fixed by way of what Hedges has called a collapsing liberal establishment with its various
institutions, officially speaking. That is, it's not institutional racism that's collapsing, but that institution is not officially
recognized as such.
HOWEVER, it IS possible, even when burdened with an economics that is capitalism, to redistribute wealth, and I don't just
mean Mark Zuckerberg's. I mean all wealth in whatever form can be redistributed if/when government decides it can. And THIS TIME,
unlike the 1950s-60s, not only would taxes on the wealthy be the same as then but the wealth redistributed would be redistributed
to ALL, not just to white families, and perhaps in particular to red families, the oft forgotten ones.
This is a matter of political will. But, of course, if that means whites as the largest voting block insist on electing to
office those without the political will, nothing will change. In that case, other means have to be considered, and just a reminder:
If the government fails to serve the people, the Constitution gives to the people the right to depose that government. But again,
if whites as the largest voting block AND as the largest sub-group in the nation (and women are the largest part of that block,
often voting as their men vote--just the facts, please, however unpleasant) have little interest in seeing to making necessary
changes at least in voting booths, then...what? Bolshevism or what? No one seems to know and it's practically taboo even to talk
about possibilities. Americans did it once, but not inclusively and not even paid in many instances. When it happens again, it
has to happen with and for the participation of ALL. And it's worth noting that it will have to happen again, because capitalism
by its very nature cannot survive itself. That is, as Marx rightly noted, capitalism will eventually collapse by dint of its internal
contradictions.
mbidding Jeremiah2000 5 Dec 2015 15:08
Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might
find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo.
Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere
in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that
you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have
a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt
to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs.
Consider as well that you don't have transportation to get a job that would improve your circumstances. You earn too much to
qualify for meaningful levels of food support programs and fall into the insurance gap for subsidies because you live in a state
that for ideological reasons refuses to expand Medicaid coverage. Your local schools are a disgrace but you can't take advantage
of so-called school choice programs (vouchers, charters, and the like) as you don't have transportation or the time (given your
employer's refusal to set fixed working hours for minimum wage part time work) to get your kids to that fine choice school.
You may have a fridge and a stove, but you have no food to cook. You may have access to running water and electricity, but
you can't afford to pay the bills for such on account of having to choose between putting food in that fridge or flushing that
toilet. You can't be there reliably for your kids to help with school, etc, because you work constantly shifting hours for crap
pay.
Get back to me after six months to a year after living in such circumstances and then tell me again how Americans don't really
live in poverty simply because they have access to appliances.
Earl Shelton 5 Dec 2015 15:08
The Earned Income Tax Credit seems to me a good starting point for reform. It has been around since the 70s -- conceived by
Nixon/Moynihan -- and signed by socialist (kidding) Gerald Ford -- it already *redistributes* income (don't choke on the term,
O'Reilly) directly from tax revenue (which is still largely progressive) to the working poor, with kids.
That program should be massively expanded to tax the 1% -- and especially the top 1/10 of 1% (including a wealth tax) -- and
distribute the money to the bottom half of society, mostly in the form of work training, child care and other things that help
put them in and keep them in the middle class. It is a mechanism already in existence to correct the worst ravages of Capitalism.
Use it to build shared prosperity.
oKWJNRo 5 Dec 2015 14:40
So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those
who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap
if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context.
We can probably all agree that Capitalism has brought about widespread improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions,
for example, compared to the feudal system that preceded it... But it also disproportionately benefits the upper echelons of Capitalist
societies and is wholly unequal by design.
Capitalism depends upon the existence of a large underclass that can be exploited. This is part of the process of how surplus
value is created and wealth is extracted from labour. This much is indisputable. It is therefore obvious that capitalism isn't
an ideal system for most of us living on this planet.
As for the improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions etc that Capitalism has fostered... Most of these were
won through long struggles against the Capitalist hegemony by the masses. We would have certainly chosen to make these improvements
to our landscape sooner if Capitalism hadn't made every effort to stop us. The problem today is that Capitalism and its powerful
beneficiaries have successfully convinced us that there is no possible alternative. It won't give us the chance to try or even
permit us to believe there could be another, better way.
Martin Joseph -> realdoge 5 Dec 2015 14:33
Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to
the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic
systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this.
I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via
the capitalist countries.
VWFeature 5 Dec 2015 14:29
Markets, economies and tax systems are created by people, and based on rules they agree on. Those rules can favor general prosperity
or concentration of wealth. Destruction and predation are easier than creation and cooperation, so our rules have to favor cooperation
if we want to avoid predation and destructive conflicts.
In the 1930's the US changed many of those rules to favor general prosperity. Since then they've been gradually changed to
favor wealth concentration and predation. They can be changed back.
The trick is creating a system that encourages innovation while putting a safety net under the population so failure doesn't
end in starvation.
A large part of our current problems is the natural tendency for large companies to get larger and larger until their failure
would adversely affect too many others, so they're not allowed to fail. Tax law, not antitrust law, has to work against this.
If a company can reduce its tax rate by breaking into 20 smaller (still huge) companies, then competition is preserved and no
one company can dominate and control markets.
Robert Goldschmidt -> Jake321 5 Dec 2015 14:27
Bernie Sanders has it right on -- we can only heal our system by first having millions rise up and demand an end to the corruption
of the corporations controlling our elected representatives. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
moonwrap02 5 Dec 2015 14:26
The effects of wealth distribution has far reaching consequences. It is not just about money, but creating a fair society -
one that is co-operative and cohesive. The present system has allowed an ever divide between the rich and poor, creating a two
tier society where neither the twain shall meet. The rich and poor are almost different species on the planet and no longer belong
to the same community. Commonality of interest is lost and so it's difficult to form community and to have good, friendly relationships
across class differences that are that large.
"If capitalism is to be seen to be fair, the same rules are to apply to the big guy as to the little guy,"
Sorry. I get it now. You actually think that because the Washington elite has repealed Glass-Steagel that we live in a unregulated
capitalistic system.
This is so far from the truth that I wasn't comprehending that anyone could think that. You can see the graph of pages published
in the Federal Register here. Unregulated capitalism? Wow.
Dodd Frank was passed in 2010 (without a single Republican vote). Originally it was 2,300 pages. It is STILL being written
by nameless bureaucrats and is over 20,000 pages. Unregulated capitalism? Really?
But the reality is that Goliath is conspiring with the government to regulate what size sling David can use and how many stones
and how many ounces.
So we need more government regulations? They will disallow David from anything but spitwads and only two of those.
neuronmaker -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:16
Do you understand the concept of corporations which are products of capitalism?
The legal institutions within each capitalist corporations and nations are just that, they are capitalist and all about making
profits.
The law is made by the rich capitalists and for the rich capitalists. Each Legislation is a link in the chain of economic slavery
by capitalists.
Capitalism and the concept of money is a construction of the human mind, as it does not exist in the natural world. This construction
is all about using other human beings like blood suckers to sustain a cruel and evil life style - with blood and brutality as
the core ideology.
Marcedward -> MarjaE 5 Dec 2015 14:12
I would agree that our system of help for the less-well-off could be more accessible and more generous, but that doesn't negate
that point that there is a lot of help out there - the most important help being that totally free educational system. Think about
it, a free education, and to get the most out of it a student merely has to show up, obey the rules, do the homework and study
for tests. It's all laid out there for the kids like a helicopter mom laying out her kids clothes. How much easier can we make
it? If people can't be bothered to show up and put in effort, how is their failure based on racism
tommydog -> martinusher 5 Dec 2015 14:12
As you are referring to Carlos Slim, interestingly while he is Mexican by birth his parents were both Lebanese.
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:12
Why isn't that capitalism? It's raw capitalism on steroids.
Zara Von Fritz -> Toughspike 5 Dec 2015 14:12
It's an equal opportunity plantation now.
Robert Goldschmidt 5 Dec 2015 14:11
The key to repairing the system is to identify the causes of our problems.
Here is my list:
The information technology revolution which continues to destroy wages by enabling automation and outsourcing.
The reformation of monopolies which price gouge and block innovation.
Hitting ecological limits such as climate change, water shortages, unsustainable farming.
Then we can make meaningful changes such as regulation of the portion of corporate profit that are pay, enforcement of national
and regional antitrust laws and an escalating carbon tax.
Zara Von Fritz -> PostCorbyn 5 Dec 2015 14:11
If you can believe these quality of life or happiness indexes they put out so often, the winners tend to be places that have
nice environments and a higher socialist mix in their economy. Of course there are examples of poor countries that practice the
same but its not clear that their choice is causal rather than reactive.
We created this mess and we can fix it.
Zara Von Fritz -> dig4victory 5 Dec 2015 14:03
Yes Basic Income is possibly the mythical third way. It socialises wealth to a point but at the same time frees markets from
their obligation to perpetually grow and create jobs for the sake of jobs and also hereford reduces the subsequent need for governments
to attempt to control them beyond maintaining their health.
Zara Von Fritz 5 Dec 2015 13:48
As I understand it, you don't just fiddle with capitalism, you counteract it, or counterweight it. A level of capitalism, or
credit accumulation, and a level of socialism has always existed, including democracy which is a manifestation of socialism (1
vote each). So the project of capital accumulation seems to be out of control because larger accumulations become more powerful
and meanwhile the power of labour in the marketplace has become less so due to forces driving unemployment. The danger is that
capital's power to control the democratic system reaches a point of no return.
Jeremiah2000 -> bifess 5 Dec 2015 13:42
"I do not have the economic freedom to grow my own food because i do not have access to enough land to grow it and i do not
have the economic clout to buy a piece of land."
Economic freedom does NOT mean you get money for free. It means that means that if you grow food for personal use, the federal
government doesn't trash the Constitution by using the insterstate commerce clause to say that it can regulate how much you grow
on your own personal land.
Economic freedom means that if you have a widget, you can choose to set the price for $10 or $100 and that a buyer is free
to buy it from you or not buy it from you. It does NOT mean that you are entitled to "free" widgets.
"If capitalism has not managed to eradicate poverty in rich first world countries then just what chance if there of capitalism
eradicating poverty on a global scale?"
The average person in poverty in the U.S. doesn't live in poverty:
In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority-58.2 percent-have computers.
Fully 96.1 percent of American households in "poverty" have a television to watch, and 83.2 percent of them have a video-recording
device in case they cannot get home in time to watch the football game or their favorite television show and they want to record
it for watching later.
Refrigerators (97.8 percent), gas or electric stoves (96.6 percent) and microwaves (93.2 percent) are standard equipment in
the homes of Americans in "poverty."
More than 83 percent have air-conditioning.
Interestingly, the appliances surveyed by the Census Bureau that households in poverty are least likely to own are dish washers
(44.9 percent) and food freezers (26.2 percent).
However, most Americans in "poverty" do not need to go to a laundromat. According to the Census Bureau, 68.7 percent of households
in poverty have a clothes washer and 65.3 percent have a clothes dryer.
From what I have understood ( and as well you will, by extensive reading ) this, and other
till now seeminlgy unknown initiatives, is the source
of the whole Russian meddling campaign,
and Skripal and other "poisonings" issue,
the rise of neonazis in Ukraine and the rest of Europe,
the provocations in the Kerch Strait,
various "colour revolutions" along European history,
"independentist movements" and last wars in Europe and the Middle East,
or money laundering schemes for unconfessable activities, with special chapter
dedicated to the recruiting, conditioning and military trainning of Muslim youth from
disadvantaged outcomes/neighborhoods to alleged "increase of opportunities",
which has all the look of the formation of our well know "proxy" army to use in the
Middle East and various "terrorist attacks" in European soil, where the perpetrators always
resulted having a close relation, or were "well known" with the intelligence services.
"... We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved. Murray's blog is almost always worth following, just as 'b's is. Yesterday more news about the Skripal case emerged: it seems that the British government was prepared well in advance for the sudden attack on Skripal. ..."
Craig Murray today publishes accounts from the "Integrity Initiative" showing that
journalists in Scotland are receiving retainers of 2500 a month Sterling, plus expenses and
payment for actual articles published.
And if this is going on in Scotland we can be quite sure that it is actually happening in
North America and Europe, generally, and, of course, in the less prosperous parts of the
world where standards of integrity are just as low as they are hereabouts.
We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the
payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved. Murray's
blog is almost always worth following, just as 'b's is. Yesterday more news about the Skripal
case emerged: it seems that the British government was prepared well in advance for the
sudden attack on Skripal.
What we are witnessing is the complete incompetence of those running the Empire. While
malicious, indeed deadly, they simply cannot keep up with the critics of imperialism. Their
power rests entirely on their ability to use force, both physical and financial. Their
attempts to use social medias to their advantage are lame and ineffective. It seems clear to
me that they will soon be reduced to using their power not just to hobble but to cripple
critics- net neutrality is already finished.
From what I have understood ( and as well you will, by extensive reading ) this, and other
till now seeminlgy unknown initiatives, is the source of the whole Russian meddling campaign,
and Skripal and other "poisonings" issue, the rise of neonazis in Ukraine and the rest of
Europe, the provocations in the Kerch Strait, various "colour revolutions" along European
history, "independentist movements" and last wars in Europe and the Middle East, or money
laundering schemes for unconfessable activities, with special chapter dedicated to the
recruiting, conditioning and military trainning of Muslim youth from disadvantaged
outcomes/neighborhoods to alleged "increase of opportunities", which has all the look of the
formation of our well know "proxy" army to use in the Middle East and various "terrorist
attacks" in European soil, where the perpetrators always resulted having a close relation, or
were "well known" with the intelligence services.
"... The list is headed CND gen list 2. CND is Christopher Nigel Donnelly, Director of the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative and a very senior career Military Intelligence Officer. ..."
"... Murder in Samarkand ..."
"... Now let us tie that in with the notorious name further down the list; Pablo Miller, the long-term MI6 handler of Sergei Skripal, who lived in Salisbury with Skripal. Miller is the man who was, within 24 hours of the Skripal attack, protected by a D(SMA) notice banning the media from mentioning him. Here Pablo Miller is actively involved, alongside serving FCO and MOD staff, in a government funded organisation whose avowed intention is to spread disinformation about Russia. The story that Miller is in an inactive retirement is immediately and spectacularly exploded. ..."
"... Now look at another name on this list. Howard Body. Assistant Head of Science Support at Porton Down chemical weapon research laboratory, just six miles away from Salisbury and the Skripal attack, a role he took up in December 2017. He combines this role with Assistant Head of Strategic Analysis at MOD London. "Science Support" at Porton Down is a euphemism for political direction to the scientists – Body has no scientific qualifications. ..."
"... Zachary Harkenrider is the Political Counsellor at the US Embassy in London. There are normally at least two Political Counsellors at an Embassy this size, one of whom will normally be the CIA Head of Station. I do not know if Harkenrider is CIA but it seems highly likely. ..."
"... So what do we have here? We have a programme, the Integrity Initiative, whose entire purpose is to pump out covert disinformation against Russia, through social media and news stories secretly paid for by the British government. And we have the Skripals' MI6 handler, the BBC, Porton Down, the FCO, the MOD and the US Embassy, working together in a group under the auspices of the Integrity Initiative. The Skripal Case happened to occur shortly after a massive increase in the Integrity Initiative's budget and activity, which itself was a small part of a British Government decision to ramp up a major information war against Russia. ..."
"... Working Group on Syria, Media, and the Propaganda ..."
Craig Murray's latest provides convincing evidence that whatever happened to the Skripals in Salisbury was part of the Integrity
Initiative's propaganda campaign against Russia.
It is worth starting by noting that a high percentage of the Integrity Initiative archive has been authenticated. The scheme
has been admitted by the
FCO and defended as legitimate government activity. Individual items like the minutes of the meeting with David Leask
are authenticated. Not one of the documents has so far been disproven, or even denied.
Which tends to obscure some of
the difficulties with the material. There is no metadata showing when each document was created, as opposed to when Anonymous
made it into a PDF. Anonymous have released it in tranches and made plain there is more to come. The reason for this methodology
is left obscure.
Most frustratingly, Anonymous' comments on the releases indicate that they have vital information which is not, so far,
revealed. The most important document of all appears to be a simple contact list, of a particular group within the hundreds
of contacts revealed in the papers overall. This is it in full:
Tantalisingly, Anonymous
describe this as a list of people who attended a meeting with the White Helmets. But there is no evidence of that in the
document itself, nor does any other document released so far refer to this meeting. There is very little in the documents released
so far about the White Helmets at all. But there is a huge amount about the Skripal case. With the greatest of respect to Anonymous
and pending any release of further evidence, I want you to consider whether this might be a document related to the Skripal
incident.
The list is headed CND gen list 2. CND is Christopher Nigel Donnelly, Director of the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity
Initiative and a very senior career Military Intelligence Officer.
The first name on the list caught my eye. Duncan Allan was the young FCO Research Analyst who, as detailed in Murder
in Samarkand, appears in my Ambassadorial office in Tashkent, telling me of the FCO staff who had been left in tears by
the pressure put on them to sign up to Blair's dodgy dossier on Iraqi WMD. During the process of clearing the manuscript with
the FCO, I was told (though not by him) that he denied having ever said it. It was one of a very few instances where I refused
to make the changes requested to the text, because I had no doubt whatsoever of what had been said.
If Duncan did lie about having told me, it did his career no harm as he is now Deputy Head of FCO Research Analysts and,
most importantly, the FCO's lead analyst on Russia and the Former Soviet Union.
Now let us tie that in with the notorious name further down the list; Pablo Miller, the long-term MI6 handler of Sergei
Skripal, who lived in Salisbury with Skripal. Miller is the man who was, within 24 hours of the Skripal attack, protected by
a D(SMA) notice banning the media from mentioning him. Here Pablo Miller is actively involved, alongside serving FCO and MOD
staff, in a government funded organisation whose avowed intention is to spread disinformation about Russia. The story that
Miller is in an inactive retirement is immediately and spectacularly exploded.
Now look at another name on this list. Howard Body. Assistant Head of Science Support at Porton Down chemical weapon research
laboratory, just six miles away from Salisbury and the Skripal attack, a role he took up in December 2017. He combines this
role with Assistant Head of Strategic Analysis at MOD London. "Science Support" at Porton Down is a euphemism for political
direction to the scientists – Body has no scientific qualifications.
Another element brought into this group is the state broadcaster, through Helen Boaden, the former Head of BBC News and
Current Affairs.
In all there are six serving MOD staff on the list, all either in Intelligence or in PR. Intriguingly one of them, Ian Cohen,
has email addresses both at the MOD and at the notoriously corrupt HSBC bank. The other FCO name besides Duncan Allan, Adam
Rutland, is also on the PR side.
Zachary Harkenrider is the Political Counsellor at the US Embassy in London. There are normally at least two Political Counsellors
at an Embassy this size, one of whom will normally be the CIA Head of Station. I do not know if Harkenrider is CIA but it seems
highly likely.
So what do we have here? We have a programme, the Integrity Initiative, whose entire purpose is to pump out covert disinformation
against Russia, through social media and news stories secretly paid for by the British government. And we have the Skripals'
MI6 handler, the BBC, Porton Down, the FCO, the MOD and the US Embassy, working together in a group under the auspices of the
Integrity Initiative. The Skripal Case happened to occur shortly after a massive increase in the Integrity Initiative's budget
and activity, which itself was a small part of a British Government decision to ramp up a major information war against Russia.
I find that very interesting indeed.
With a hat-tip to members of the Working Group on Syria, Media, and the Propaganda, who are preparing a major and
important publication which is imminent. UPDATE Their extremely important
briefing
note on the Integrity Initiative is now online, prepared to the highest standards of academic discipline. I shall be drawing
on and extrapolating from it further next week.
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine,
which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:
Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to
harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous.
Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national
security at grave risk.
This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy)
destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the
hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the
consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in
Antiwar.com in 2015:
The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State
Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all
other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked
the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and
al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the
ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.
This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a.
"Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our
Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we
empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to
ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch
shows.
After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be
commenting on this matter.
a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am
> the people who want to harm us are there & at war
Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.
you're one
of the millions of human beings who, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still
believe there is such a thing as "the truth," you might not want to read this essay. Seriously,
it can be extremely upsetting when you discover that there is no "truth" or rather, that what
we're all conditioned to regard as "truth" from the time we are children is just the product of
a technology of power, and not an empirical state of being. Humans, upon first encountering
this fact, have been known to freak completely out and start jabbering about the "Word of God,"
or "the immutable laws of quantum physics," and run around burning other people at the stake or
locking them up and injecting them with Thorazine. I don't want to be responsible for anything
like that, so consider this your trigger warning.
OK, now that that's out of the way, let's take a look at how "truth" is manufactured. It's
actually not that complicated. See, the "truth" is well, it's a story, essentially. It's
whatever story we are telling ourselves at any given point in history ("we" being the majority
of people, those conforming to the rules of whatever system wields enough power to dictate the
story it wants everyone to be telling themselves). Everyone understands this intuitively, but
the majority of people pretend they don't in order to be able to get by in the system, which
punishes anyone who does not conform to its rules, or who contradicts its story. So, basically,
to manufacture the truth, all you really need is (a) a story, and (b) enough power to coerce a
majority of people in your society to pretend to believe it.
I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better
debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan
Cook ,
Craig Murray ,
Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama, and many others). [ ed. including
us ]
The short version is, The Guardian's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix
his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort,
Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on
numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans
into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian
prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual
anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The
Guardian quietly revised the piece (employing the subjunctive mood rather
liberally), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had
never published it.
The Guardian's latest attack on Julian Assange was not only a fallacious smear, it
represented a desperate attempt on behalf of the British intelligence community to conflate the
pending US charges against the journalist with Russiagate. The Guardian's article seeks to
deflect from the reality that the prosecution of Assange will
focus on Chelsea Manning-Era releases and Vault 7, not the DNC or Podesta emails.
We assert this claim based on the timing of the publication, the Guardian's history of
subservience to British intelligence agencies, animosity between The Guardian and WikiLeaks,
and the longstanding personal feud between Guardian journalist Luke Harding and Assange. This
conclusion is also supported by Harding's financial and career interest in propping up the
Russiagate narrative
"... " The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." ..."
"... 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns." ..."
"... "There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." ..."
"... " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." ..."
"... One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " ..."
"... The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador. ..."
"... The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories. ..."
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." ..."
"... That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some. ..."
Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple
serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though
not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at
the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando
Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the
USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador .
Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian
Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now
been
definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy
between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he
was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear
authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories
based on fabricated documents.
In May,
Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or
rather, the normal
security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That
hit-piece ,
co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an
anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly
refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept , and also by WikiLeaks as an "anonymous libel" with which the
Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."
How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns
out.
Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a
comprehensive report
detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums
up her findings, which are worth reading in full :
" The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the
Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S.
government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both
Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa."
As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that
during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against
humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot
at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by
the court.
Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson
recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian
stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted : 2014 Ecuador's
Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was
fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake
Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that
the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and
opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the
document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and
replaced with a version with this evidence removed)."
The statement also notes that
Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010
coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.
It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest
libelous article were photographed with
Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange
had conducted meetings with Manafort.
Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: " This video from the news wire
Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally
uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified
shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would
appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.
Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the
gall to publish another image of himself
with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "
One of my greatest journalistic experiences was
working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the
Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @somos_lafuente " [Translated from Spanish]
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the
disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all
involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims,
or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.
Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted
by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that
Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange
allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be
viewed, however, thanks to archive services.
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence
showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it
documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and
fabricated stories.
All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding
and Collyns – Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even
quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these
three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?
Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its
already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.
Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism
Craig Murray calls Harding an " MI6
tool ", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook,
hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as
fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of
anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists
of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.
To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again
recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire
Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the
internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it
was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.
In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and
WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the
pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer
previously noted , Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: " Collusion: Secret
Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to
Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty
narrative his book supports.
Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that
Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his
pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the
case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on
behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book
sales.
That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange
story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version
of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez
, raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad
sources who duped them, as claimed by some.
It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same
intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee
for.
In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on
its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending
prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an
onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the
largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building
in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.
The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of
the establishment when it comes to Assange.
Matt o'Brien and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers
,
Associated Press
•
December
17, 2018
<img alt="Key takeaways from new reports on Russian disinformation" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9VGA29inJ83dPeqC.cvqTg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/images/US_AHTTP_AP_HEADLINES_BUSINESS/e66de17c8e1a4cecaf1da81f2bf87093_original.jpg" itemprop="url"/>
Some suspected Russian-backed fake social media accounts on Facebook.
Russians seeking to influence U.S. elections through social media had their
eyes on Instagram and the black community.
These were among the findings in two reports released Monday by the Senate
intelligence committee. Separate studies from University of Oxford researchers
and the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge reveal insights into how Russian
agents sought to influence Americans by saturating their favorite online
services and apps with hidden propaganda.
Here are the highlights:
INSTAGRAM'S "MEME WARFARE"
Both reports show that misinformation on Facebook's Instagram may have had
broader reach than the interference on Facebook itself.
The New Knowledge study says that since 2015, the Instagram posts generated
187 million engagements, such as comments or likes, compared with 77 million
on Facebook.
And the barrage of image-centric Instagram "memes" has only grown since the
2016 election. Russian agents shifted their focus to Instagram after the
public last year became aware of the widespread manipulation on Facebook and
Twitter.
NOT JUST ADS
Revelations last year that Russian agents used rubles to pay for some of their
propaganda ads drew attention to how gullible tech companies were in allowing
their services to be manipulated.
But neither ads nor automated "bots" were as effective as unpaid posts
hand-crafted by human agents pretending to be Americans. Such posts were more
likely to be shared and commented on, and they rose in volume during key dates
in U.S. politics such as during the presidential debates in 2016 or after the
Obama administration's post-election announcement that it would investigate
Russian hacking.
"These personalized messages exposed U.S. users to a wide range of
disinformation and junk news linked to on external websites, including content
designed to elicit outrage and cynicism," says the report by Oxford
researchers, who worked with social media analysis firm Graphika.
DEMOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Both reports found that Russian agents tried to polarize Americans in part by
targeting African-American communities extensively. They did so by campaigning
for black voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in
2016, according to the Oxford report.
The New Knowledge report added that agents were "developing Black audiences
and recruiting Black Americans as assets" beyond how they were targeting
either left- or right-leaning voters.
The reports also support previous findings that the influence operations
sought to polarize Americans by sowing political divisions on issues such as
immigration and cultural and religious identities. The goal, according to the
New Knowledge report, was to "create and reinforce tribalism within each
targeted community."
Such efforts extended to Google-owned YouTube, despite Google's earlier
assertion to Congress that Russian-made videos didn't target specific segments
of the population.
PINTEREST TO POKEMON
The New Knowledge report says the Russian troll operation worked in many ways
like a conventional corporate branding campaign, using a variety of different
technology services to deliver the same messages to different groups of
people.
Among the sites infiltrated with propaganda were popular image-heavy services
like Pinterest and Tumblr, chatty forums like Reddit, and a wonky geopolitics
blog promoted from Russian-run accounts on Facebook and YouTube.
Even the silly smartphone game "Pokemon Go" wasn't immune. A Tumblr post
encouraged players to name their Pokemon character after a victim of police
brutality.
WHAT NOW?
Both reports warn that some of these influence campaigns are ongoing.
The Oxford researchers note that 2016 and 2017 saw "significant efforts" to
disrupt elections around the world not just by Russia, but by domestic
political parties spreading disinformation.
They warn that online propaganda represents a threat to democracies and public
life. They urge social media companies to share data with the public far more
broadly than they have so far.
"Protecting our democracies now means setting the rules of fair play before
voting day, not after," the Oxford report says.
4 hours
ago
so where's the evidence that Russian
facebook or twitter posts changed a single vote?
Swing between extremes, however, consistent in US history, economic predatory dependence on
free/ultra cheap labor with no legal rights. Current instantiation, offshored and illegal and
"temporary" immigrant labor. Note neither party in the US is proposing "immigration reform"
is green card upon hire. Ds merely propose green card for time served for those over X number
of years donated as captive/cheap.
The entitled to cheap/captive now want it in law, national laws and trade agreements.
All privilege/no responsibilities, including taxes.
Doesn't scale. 1929 says so, 2008 says so.
Liberals, the Left, Progressives -- whatever you want to call them suffer from a basic
problem. They don't work together and have no common goals. As the article stated they
complain but offer no real solutions that they can agree on. Should we emphasize gay pride or
should we emphasize good-paying jobs and benefits with good social welfare benefits? Until
they can agree at least on priorities they will never reform the current corrupt system -- it
is too entrenched. Even if the Capitalist Monstrosity we have now self-destructs as the
writer indicates -- nothing good will replace it until the Left get their act together.
"Lesser of two evils" needs to go on the burn pile.
Encumbent congress needs a turn over.
Not showing up to vote is not okay. If people can't think of someone they want to write-in,
"none of the above" is a protest vote. Not voting is silence, which equals consent.
Local elections, beat back Koch/ALEC, hiding on ballots as "Libertarian". "Privatize
everything" is their mantra, so they can further profitize via inescapeable taxes, while
gutting "regulation" - safety and market integrity, with no accountability.
Corporation 101: limited liability. While means we are left holding the bag. As in bailout -
$125 billion in 1990, up to $7.7 trillion in 2008.
Anything the Economist presents as the overriding choice is probably best relegated to
one factor among many. I respect Milanovic's work, but he's seeing things from where we are
now. Remember we've seen populist surges come and go from the witch-burnings and religious
panics of the 17th century to 1890s Bryanism and the 1930s far right, and each time they've
yielded to a more articulate vision, though the last time it cost sixty million dead - not
something we want to see repeated. This time it's hard because dissent still clings to a
"post-ideological" delusion that those on top never succumbed to. But change will come as
what I'd term "post-rational" alternatives fail to deliver. Let's hope it's sooner rather
than later.
"Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt." Thank you Martin, at least someone
writing in the Guardian has got the point!
We voted against the EU's unelected European Central Bank, its unelected European Commission,
its European Court of Justice, its Common Agricultural Policy and its Common Fisheries
Policy.
We voted against the EU's treaty-enshrined 'austerity' (= depression) policies, which have
impoverished Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
We voted against the EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would
privatise all our public services, which threatens all our rights, and which discriminates
against the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
We voted against the EU's tariffs against African farmers' cheaper produce.
We opposed the City of London Corporation, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the IMF,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, which all wanted us to
stay in the EU.
We voted against the EU's undemocratic trilogue procedure and its pro-austerity Semester
programme. We voted to leave this undemocratic, privatisation-enforcing, austerity-enforcing
body.
Bailout was because that was public savings, pensions, 401ks, etc. the banks were playing
with, and lost. Bailout is billing all of us for it. Bad, letting the banks/financial
"services" not only survive but continue the exact same practices.
Bailout: $7.2 to $7.7 trillion. Current derivative holdings: $500 trillion.
Not just moral hazard but economic hazard when capitalism basic rule is broken, allow bad
businesses to die of their own accord. Subversion currently called "too big to fail", rather
than tell the public "we lost all your savings, pensions, ...".
Relocating poverty from the East into the West isn't improvement.
Creating sweatshops in the East isn't raising their standard of living.
Creating economies so economically unstable that population declines isn't improvement.
Trying to bury that fact with immigration isn't improvement.
Configuring all of the above for record profit for the benefit of a tiny percentage of the
population isn't improvement.
Gaming tax law to avoid paying into/for extensive business use of federal services and tax
base isn't improvement.
Game over. Time for a reboot.
I am glad you finally concede a point on neo-liberalism. The moral hazard argument is
extremely poor and typical in this era of runaway CEO pay, of a tendency to substitute
self-help fables (a la "The monk who sold his Ferrari) and pop psychology ( a la Moral
Hazard) for credible economic analysis.
The economic crisis is rooted in the profit motive just as capitalist economic growth is.
Lowering of Tarrif barriers, outsourcing, changes in value capture (added value), new
financial instruments, were attempts to restore the falling rate of profit. They did for a
while, but, as always happens with Capitalism, the seeds of the new crisis were in the
solution to the old.
And all the while the state continues growing in an attempt to keep capitalism afloat.
Neoliberalism failed ( or should I say "small state" ) and here is the graph to prove it: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t.png
Interesting, and I believe accurate, analysis of the economic and political forces afoot.
However it is ludicrous to state that Donald trump, who is a serial corpratist, out-sourcer,
tax avoider and scam artist, actually believes any of those populist principles that you
ascribe so firmly to him. The best and safest outcome of our election, in my opinion, would
be to have a Clinton administration tempered by the influences from the populist wings of
both parties.
Great article, however the elite globalists are in complete denial in the US. Our only choice
is to vote them out of power because the are owned by Wall Street. Both Bernie and Trump
supporters should unite to vote establishment out of Washington.
There were similar observations in the immediate aftermath of 2008, and doubtless before.
Many of us thought the crisis would trigger a rethink of the whole direction of the previous
three decades, but instead we got austerity and a further lurch to the right, or at best
Obama-style stimulus and modest tweaks which were better than the former but still rather
missed the point. I still find it flabbergasting and depressing, but on reflection the 1930s
should have been a warning of not just the economic hazards but also the political fallout,
at least in Europe. The difference was that this time left ideology had all but vacated the
field in the 1980s and was in no position to lead a fightback: all we can hope for is better
late than never.
Yes it is, it's an extremely bad thing destroying the fabric of society. Social science
has documented that even the better off are more happy, satisfied with life and feel safer in
societies (i.e. the Scandinavian) where there is a relatively high degree of economic
equality. Yes, economic inequality is a BAD thing in itself.
Oh, give me a break. Social science will document anything it can publish, no matter how
spurious. If Scandanavia is so great, why are they such pissheads? There has always been
inequality, including in workers' paradises like the Soviet Union and Communist China.
Inequality is what got us where we are today, through natural selection. Phenotype is largely
dependent on genotype, so why shouldn't we pass on material wealth as well as our genes?
Surely it is a parent's right to afford their offspring advantages if they can do so?
Have you got any numbers? Or references for your allegations. I say the average or median
wealth, opportunity, economic circumstance and health measures are substantially better than
a generation (lets say 30 years) ago.
Again I don't think our system is perfect. I don't deny that some in our societies
struggle and don't benefit, particularly the poorly educated, disabled, mentally ill and drug
addicted. I actually agree that we could better target our social redistribution from those
that have to those that need help. I disagree that we need higher taxes, protectionism,
socialism, more public servants, more legislation. Indeed I disagree with proposition that
other systems are better.
George Orwell said, in the 30s, that the price of social justice would include a lowering of
living standards for the working- & middle-classes, at least temporarily, so I follow
your line of thought. However, the outrageous tilt toward the upper .1% has no "adjustment"
fluff to shield it from the harsh despotism it represents. So, do put that in your
statistical pipe and smoke it.
Add to this that Trump changed his election slogan from "make America [ "working class"]
great again" to "make Amerca [financial oligarchy] great again"
The only problem is that 'America' does not exist. America is a part description of a
continent and I think we are talking about the USA (only one country on North American
soil) Why do the yanks always have to exaggerate their own importance like the Olympics
bloke who claimed he was robbed at gunpoint lol! Do the USAians actually have an
inferiority complex?
"... Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! ..."
"... the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites? ..."
"... Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth. ..."
"... He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI). ..."
"... This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine. ..."
"... That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" ..."
"... In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea: ..."
"... Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia? ..."
"... Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda ..."
"... Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures ..."
"... Russian information warfare - airbrushing reality ..."
"... Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria ..."
"... Russian penetration in Germany ..."
"... Russian conspiracy theory and foreign policy ..."
"... The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it. ..."
"... Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart. ..."
"... McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters. ..."
"... Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force. ..."
"... It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit ..."
"... This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state. ..."
"... it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy. ..."
"... It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism. ..."
"... Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art. ..."
"... Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller? ..."
"... Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians. ..."
"... Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM ..."
"... The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions. ..."
"... right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with ..."
"... Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy. ..."
"... 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy ..."
Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation
program !!! How many billions is that guna save us all ! not to mention lives saved.
Wrong JR. It seems quite the obvious that the big boy in the west, the US, would seem to be
the one spearheading the whole globalist agenda.
But this is a retarded proposition.
The US is nothing more than a Golem. It has been reduced to somnambulism and hijacked,
utilized for the ends of these Non-National elites. Sure, like many posters here, it feels good
to blame the US for everything. But the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its
hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but
ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global
elites?
Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power
brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of
Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they
are fighting the commies.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi was arrested and tortured for it...
"They broke my teeth, my nose, my leg, they electrocuted me, lashed me, they would beat me,
they even broke a table or a chair over my back. I don't know, they had my eyes covered,"
al-Zaidi recalled. "This was one thing I never experienced before. Torture by the
authorities, by the rule of law."
I wish it had been a hand grenade.
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and with influencing the public, military and governments of a number
of countries. What follows is an incomplete analysis of the third batch of the Initiative's
papers which was
dumped yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
Among the documents
lifted by some anonymous person from the servers of the Institute we find several papers
about Donnelly as well as some memos written by him. They show a russophobe mind with a lack of
realistic strategic thought.
There is also
a file (pdf) with a copy of his passport:
From his
curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army
Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office
(FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth.
He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries
General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises
the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's
Stabilisation Unit which
is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the
Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI).
During his time as military intelligence analyst in the 1980s Donnelly wrote several books
and papers about the Soviet Union and its military.
Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in
a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, this state of affairs is now being challenged. A new paradigm of conflict
is replacing the 19th & 20th Century paradigm.
... ... ...
In this new paradigm, the clear distinction which most people have been able to draw
between war and peace, their expectation of stability and a degree of predictability in life,
are being replaced by a volatile unpredictability, a permanent state of instability in which
war and peace become ever more difficult to disentangle . The "classic" understanding of
conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of
Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big
corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each
other in a "war of all against all". The Western rules-based system, which most westerners
take for granted and have come to believe is "normal", is under attack from countries and
organisations which wish to replace our system with theirs. This is not a crisis which faces
us; it is a strategic challenge, and from several directions simultaneously.
In reality the "Western rules-based system", fully implemented after the demise of the
Soviet Union, is a concept under which 'the west' arbitrarily makes up rules and threatens to
kill anyone who does not follow them. Witness the wars against Serbia, the war on Iraq, the
destruction of Libya, the western led coup in Ukraine and the war by Jihadi proxies against the
people of Syria and Iraq. None of these actions were legal under international law. Demanding a
return to strict adherence to the rule of international law, as Russia,
China and others now do, it is not an attempt to replace "our system with theirs". It is a
return to the normal state of global diplomacy. It is certainly not a "Darwinian
competition".
In October 2016 Donnelly had a Private
Discussion with Gen Sir Richard Barrons (pdf), marked as personal and confidential. Barrons
is a former commander of the British Joint Forces Command. The nonsensical top line is: "The UK
defence model is failing. UK is at real risk."
Some interesting nuggets again reveal a paranoid mindset. The talk also includes some
realistic truthiness about the British military posture Barrons and others created:
There has been a progressive, systemic demobilisation of NATO militarily capability and a run
down of all its members' defences
...
We are seeing new / reinvented ways of warfare – hybrid , plus the reassertion of hard
power in warfare
...
Aircraft Carriers can be useful for lots of things, but not for war v China or Russia, so we
should equip them accordingly. ...
The West no longer has a military edge on Russia. ...
Our Nuclear programme drains resources from conventional forces and hollows them out. ...
The UK Brigade in Germany is no good as a deterrent against Russia. ...
Our battalion in Estonia are hostages, not a deterrent. ...
The general laments the lack of influence the military has on the British government and its
people. He argues for more government financed think tank research that can be fed back into
the government:
So, if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a
way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political
space. We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. NB We did this in
the 1930s
My conclusion is that it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something
dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside
government .
...
We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the national
capabilities / capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of resources to
do it? We need this debate NOW. There is not a moment to be lost.
This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper
into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken
from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine.
That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative
bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the
public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance
indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for
the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia"
.
Asking for government finance to influence the government to take a "tougher stand towards
Russia" seems a bit circular. But this is consistent with the operation of other Anglo-American
think tanks and policy initiatives in which one part of the government, usually the hawkish
one, secretly uses NGO's and think-tanks to lobby other parts of the government to support
their specific hobbyhorse and budget.
Here is how it is done. The 'experts' of the 'charity' Institute for Statecraft and
Integrity Initiative
testified
in the British parliament. While they were effectively paid by the government they lobbied
parliament under the cover of their NGO. This circularity also allows to use international
intermediates. Members of the Spanish cluster
(pdf) of the Initiative
testified in the British Parliament about the Catalan referendum and related allegations
against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. (It is likely that this testimony led to the change
in the position of the Ecuadorian government towards Assange.)
Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are
incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. Chris Donnelly, despite a life long
experience in military intelligence, has obviously zero competence as a military strategist or
planner.
In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested
Military
measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea:
If I were in charge I would get the following implemented asp
Set up a cordon sanitaire across the Crimean Isthmus and on the coast N. of Crimea with
troops and mines
Mine Sevastopol harbour/bay. Can be done easily using a car ferry if they have no
minelayers. Doesn't need a lot of mines to be effective. They could easily buy some
mines.
Get their air force into the air and activate all their air defences. If they can't fly
the Migs on the airfield in Crimea those should be destroyed as a gesture that they are
serious. Going "live" electronically will worry the Russians as the Ukrainians have the
same electronic kit. If the Russians jam it they jam their own kit as well.
Ukraine used to have some seriously important weapons, such as a big microwave
anti-satellite weapon. If they still have this, they should use it.
The government needs a Strategic communication campaign-so far everything is coming
from Moscow. They need to articulate a long-term vision that will inspire the people,
however hard that is to do. Without it, what have people to fight for?
They should ask the west now to start supplying Oil and gas. There is plenty available
due to the mild winter.
I am trying to get this message across
Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the
frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures"
would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally
stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's
pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia?
Such half-assed thinking is typical for the Institute and its creation of propaganda. One of
its employees/contractors is Hugh Benedict Nimmo who the Initiative paid to produce
anti-Russian propaganda that was then disseminated through various western publications.
According to the (still very incomplete) Initiative files Ben Nimmo
received a monthly consultancy fee of £2.500 between December 2015 and March 2016. In
August 2016 he sent an invoice
(pdf) of £5,000 for his "August work on Integrity Initiative". A
Production Timetable (pdf) for March to June 2016 lists the following Nimmo outputs and
activities:
17 March Atlantic Council: Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda , Ben
Nimmo
21 March Newsweek: Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures , Ben
Nimmo
22 March, UK House of Commons: Russian information warfare - airbrushing
reality , Jonathan Eyal and Ben Nimmo
Mid May: Atlantic Council: Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria .
Ben Nimmo et al (Major study)
Early May timeframe: Russian penetration in Germany , Harold Elletson, Ben
Nimmo et al - 10,000 words
June timeframe: Atlantic Council, major report on Russian conspiracy theory and
foreign policy , Ben Nimmo (potential launch events in London and / or
Washington)
End-June: Mapping Russia's whole influence machine , Ben Nimmo - 10,000
words
One wonders how often Ben Nimmo double billed his various sponsors for these copy-paste
fantasy pamphlets.
In late 2017 Ben Nimmo and Guardian 'journalist' Carole Cadwalladr disseminated
allegations that Russia used Facebook ads to influence the Brexit decision. Cadwalladr even
received a price for her work. Unfortunately the price was not revoked when Facebook revealed
that "Russia linked" accounts had spend a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads. It is unexplained
how that was enough to achieve their alleged aim.
Cadwalladr is listed
as a speaker (pdf) at a "skill sharing" conference the Institute organized for November 1-2
under the headline: "Tackling Tools of Malign Influence - Supporting 21st Century
Journalism".
This year Ben Nimmo became notorious for claiming that
several real persons with individual opinions were "Russian trolls". As we
noted :
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is
a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian
troll' accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have
know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American- Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans
in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide
performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a
'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll'
opinions.
The
Institute for Statecraft Expert Team (pdf) list several people with military intelligence
backgrounds as well as many 'journalists'. One of them is:
Mark Galeotti
Specialist in Russian strategic thinking; the application of Russian disinformation and
hybrid warfare; the use of organised crime as a weapon of hybrid warfare. Educational and
mentoring skills, including in a US and E European environment, and the corporate world.
Russian linguist
Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about
Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then
Russia's chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is
waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified
operation.
Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian
doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the
propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review
published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It
concluded:
Gerasimov's article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has
been stated in the West.
But anti-Russian propagandist
repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti
invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally
recanted
:
Everywhere, you'll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the
"Gerasimov doctrine" -- named after Russia's chief of the general staff -- poses to the West.
It's a new way of war, "an expanded theory of modern warfare," or even "a vision of total
warfare."
There's one small problem. It doesn't exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer
we misunderstand the -- real, but different -- challenge Russia poses.
I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since
acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and
loathing in its wake.
The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of
disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and
used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the
quality of the Institute's experts and work.
One of the newly released documents headlined CND Gen list 2
(pdf) (CND= Chris Nigel Donnelly) includes the names and email addresses of a number of
military, government and think tank people. The anonymous releaser of the documents claims that
the list is "of employees who attended a closed-door meeting with the white helmets". (No
document has been published yet that confirms this.) One name on the list is of special
interest:
Pablo Miller was the handler and friend of Sergej Skripal, the British double agent who was
"novichoked" in Salisbury. When Miller's name was mentioned in the press the British government
issued a D-Notice to suppress its further publishing,
Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had
recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also
involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail.
Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released
by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and
Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about
Donald Trump.
At the very beginning of the Skripal affair, before there was any talk of 'Novichok', we
asked
if Skripal was involved in creating the
now debunked "Dirty Dossier" and if that was a reason for certain British insiders to move
him out of the way:
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots
of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and
running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very
dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia
looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
The
most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth
reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the
Initiative commissioned
such research (pdf) and paid for it.
After two years the Muller investigation found zero
evidence for the 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign that the fake Steele
dossier suggested. The whole collusion claim is a creation by 'former' British intelligence
operatives who likely acted on request of U.S. intelligence leaders Clapper and Brennan. How
deep was the Russia specialist Chris Donnelly and his Institute for Statecraft involved in this
endeavor?
Checking through all the released Initiative papers and lists one gets the impression of a
secret military intelligence operation, disguised as a public NGO. Financed by millions of
government money the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative work under a charity
label to create and disseminate disinformation to the global public and back into the
government and military itself.
The paranoia about Russia, which does way less harm than the 'western' "rules based system"
constantly creates, is illogical and not based on factual analysis. It creates Russia as an
"enemy" when it is none. It hypes a "threat" out of hot air. The only people who profit from
this are the propagandists and the companies and people who back them.
The Initiatives motto "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation" is a truly Orwellian
construct. By disseminating propaganda and using it to influence the public, parliament, the
military and governments, the Institute actively undermines the democratic process that depends
on the free availability of truthful information.
It should be shut down immediately.
---
Note: There have already been attempts to delete the released files from the Internet. A
complete archive of all Integrity Initiative files published so far is here . Should
the public links cease to work, you can contact the author of this blog for access to private
backups.
Aside from the fact that the government itself funds this organization, the creepiest thing
about it is that the "non-governmental individuals" that help fund it are the same people
that run the think tanks: a bunch of Rhodesians.
"Such half-assed thinking...Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of
Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in
Crimea. Those "gestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear
power which were legally stationed in Crimea."
It sure seems like this half-assed thinking isn't just the domain of a fringe element, but
is increasingly mainstream among the elites. Doesn't bode well.
Thank you B. It is truly amazing to watch the UK elites unravel as they have become truly
unhinged by their own connivances. It is a bad joke at the commoner's expense that they
propagandize and demonize in the name of the 'Western rules based system' even as they are
busy shooting themselves in both feet by committing Brexit. Although there are legitimate
grievances with the EU, it is clear that Brexit is a Tory power play that is all politics and
zero governance. Alas, Perfidious Albion has succumbed to Mad Cow disease.
What remains mysterious (not really) is why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save
and strengthen democracy-- they aren't proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open,
transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to
stand for might want to debate and form an opinion on.
The fact that it isn't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper.
McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal
practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been
MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being
sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow
vest protesters.
Every time one scratches the surface of such smears, it seems there is a connection to
US/British MIC, Ukraine, or Israel - essentially, those who benefit (financially or
otherwise) from greater tensions with Russia.
At what point does neocon doubling-down on failed foreign policy become more than just
picking our pockets and warping our minds? At what point do they start killing our kids in
another unnecessary war?
Cold War has been over for nearly 30 years. It's time enough for Western countries to send
into real retirement every single cold-warrior, their time is over, their mindset is quaint
and useless, if not downright dangerous and counter-productive.
Thank you 'b'
I'll just say -- - there is safety in numbers ! Already valuable information, important to
the public good and democracy has been spread wide enough to be certain, this gene won't go
back in the bottle ! D notice or no ! And by doing that, has made the fearless journalists
and investigators lives all the safer ! Safety in numbers, spread this wide everyone?
Thanks for the continued exposition of this story b.....may it go viral
I want to comment on some of the wording you quote Donnelly as writing
" .....is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players
– nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and
so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all".
"
This is Donnelly's characterization of a world in which finance is a public utility
instead of the private jackboot that it currently is. This is the delusion these people have
been led to believe.
So instead of his "war of all against all" that some might call human cooperation on the
basis of merit we have a mythical God of Mammon religion that continues to instantiate the
private finance led world of the West with it parasitic elite and fawning acolytes.
Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the
UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would
have responded with force.
Thankfully it wasn't done but the fact this was even discussed by senior figures confirms
that there was at least a sizable minority pushing for it. 30 years after the fall of the
Soviet Union, the Western elite have truly abandoned all sense of reality and embraced a
consequence free view of the use of force. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya they haven't
learned a thing! I'm becoming more and more certain that a peaceful transition to the
multipolar world is impossible and that it will only happen after the US or one of its'
vassal states blunder into a proxy war and get utterly and comprehensively defeated, forcing
a radical world realignment, but with nuts like John Bolton and the neocons in the Whitehouse
it could easily lead to a nuclear war
This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the
British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and
Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state.
exiled off mainstreet , Dec 15, 2018 2:22:39 PM |
link
As an aside this happens to be "Bill of Rights Day", the anniversary of the passage of the
Bill of Rights as amendments to the yankee constitution. This reveals again how far from the
rule of law the yankee imperium, now the key element of the British Empire they supposedly
seceded from, has strayed, since it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was
engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy.
It has also ensured that the victorious candidate has been neutered and faithfully follows
the world control line put forward by the five eyes spy-masters making up the empire in its
present iteration. This also shows what a farce the regime, based on the rule of law, now
presents.
It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's
kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it
is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic
and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes
fascism.
The "Western-based rules system" described in this article reminds me of a game called
"Calvin Ball" which appeared in the former comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes." In the strip
Calvin a wildly imaginative adolescent boy who plays a free-form of football with his
imaginary pet toy tiger (Hobbes). Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to
suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art.
b, I downloaded the zip file, and had also downloaded all the PDF's from pdf-archive
yesterday. There are more files in the zip, but the following were on pdf-archive and are NOT
in the zip:
integrity-france.pdf (this is a dud, looks like html, prob. response from a failed
attempt to put a file up on pdf-archive)
Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly
linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller?
Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either
generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. "
Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11,
with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 4:21:51 PM |
link
The transcript of his conversation with the general shows very starkly that we would last
about two minutes in a nuclear exchange, but about half a day in a conventional one. No
reserves, no equipment stockpiles, a navy consisting of two fat targets, neither of which has
any aircraft and some destroyers which have propulsion problems, a smallish air force and
very small numbers of troops. The tripwire force in Estonia is wholly sacrificial. In fact he
lays bare the whole fallacy of biting the bear. With the armed forces in the state he
describes, and with the recruitment and retention problems, wouldn't it be better, as one
defense minister said, 'to go away and shut up'...
Thanks b and especially the link to Valentina Lisitsa who I had tinkling in the background as
I read your grand expose. These people are seditious morons, parasites infesting the state
apparatus. Shut these fools down. Nice touch publishing the passport image. I can just
imagine the frenzied aftermath of Kit's visit to the basement. Big thanks to anonymous and
Craig Murray too. Their IT personel are probably visiting Devil's Island or Diego Garcia as
we read.
Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to
spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate
government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM
The British and US connections to loot and evade Russian riches and funds are exposed, as
well as the origin of sanctions, supposed "alt-media" "truth-seakers" like Meduza...or
supposed "pro-Russian" US intelligence operatives married to Russian women....
Amongst the many issues he usually passes over trying to make himself the fool, while at
the same time trying to convince us of the oustanding intellectual capacities, honesty and
classy stance of him and his "comittee"...
For that travel, to end bluntly and in such public view siding with the nazis of the "Azov
Regiment" and other criminals of war, there was no need of so many saddlebags, so as
pretending that the people who supported Trump as if there was no tomorrow, were enlightened
people who only wanted to rescue "America" for the "Americans", as if there would not be a
sign of blatant exceptionalism in appropriating of the term "Americans" for themselves in
such a huge continent....
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.
The FP pre-Soviet collapse consisted of one MO: GET THE COMMIES!
Since then, Neocons and Neolibs which are frontmen for this Non-National Globalized Elite,
have hijacked our country's military and have steered it to a Global agenda where dominance
in the ME means either superiority for these EURO elites or Vassal-hood.
The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse
which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism
(Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats
where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque
(less defensible) reasons and missions.
The average American could care less about the ME and the US would be 1000x better-off
reverting to an isolationist stance.
But this will not happen so long as Nationalism in the US and UK is repeatedly put-down.
It seems as though there is going to be another Brexit vote. Does anyone doubt that
miraculously the people by then will have second-guessed their will to Brexit and so will
vote against it given another crack at a vote?
Import IT workers and staff science faculties from abroad w dual citizens while kkr
buys wafer labs that outsource to mainland for manufacturing
Cry boo hoo hoo to wake up with indigenous capacity decades behind world players like
Russia, China, India, etc who operate on fractional budgets...
But this drama also exposes ashura/emigods intra necine warfare: right after 2016 US
elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation.
Seems that veil has been dispensed with , but it invites other questions, insofar as UK
is Her Majesty's Service, so are we to read this with Prince Harry or Philip's culture, or a
"consent by silence") in mind? Defending crown or EU "Saturnus Sattelitus"?
Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking,
setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right
about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry.
That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise
of free markets and democracy.
Good to see Trump finally give it a face... 'you need freedom and security now pay up
bitches'
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.... Globalist Agenda
I think the opposite is true.
The US-led Empire and their globalist sycophants seek to weaken Europe so that it can not
act independently in its own best interests. They will do what ever they can to ensure that
the vassals never join with Russia/China and the SCO.
Russian scare-mongering and immigration have been effective in furthering this agenda.
Also note: what USA has termed "new Europe" - eastern European states like Poland and Ukraine
- are solidly pro-American.
Exploitation is high on the priority list of any Tory government, wealth should be
distributed much more fairly than it currently is. The tories only serve the rich, they have
no time or empathy for the poor.
Empathy and compassion are vacant in the tory philosophy of the world. These two
components make up a psychopathic personality.
Skripal father probably fully participated to the whole story. These kinds of narratives are
useful to distract the masses from the complete impotency of their politicians.
He now enjoys a forced holiday in Brasil under a new name and a new face, and the same for
his daughter, who had to share in this involuntarily .
It is very interesting and educational to read this pre-election article two years later and see where the author is
right and where he is wrong. The death of neoliberalism was greatly exaggerated. It simply mutated in the USA into "national
neoliberalism" under Trump. As no clear alternative exists it remain the dominant ideology and universities still
brainwash students with neoclassical economics. And in way catchy slogan "Make America great again" under Trump
means "Make American working and lower middle class great again"
It is also clear that Trump betrayed or was forced to betray most of his election promises. Standrd of living of common
americans did not improve under his watch. most of hi benefits of his tax cuts went to large corporations and financial
oligarch. He continued the policy of financial deregulation, which is tantamount of playing with open fire trying to
warm up the house
What we see under Trump is tremendous growth of political role of intelligence agencies which now are real kingmakers and can
sink any candidate which does not support their agenda. And USA intelligence agencies operated in 2016 in close cooperation
with the UK intelligence agencies to the extent that it is not clear who has the lead in creating Steele dossier. They are
definitely out of control of executive branch and play their own game. We also see a rise of CIA democrats as a desperate
attempt to preserve the power of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ('soft neoliberals" turned under Hillary into into warmongers
and neocons) . Hillary and Bill themselves clearly belong to CIA democrats too, not only to Wall Street democrats, despite the fact
that they sold Democratic Party to Wall Street in the past. New Labor in UK did the same.
But if it is more or less clear now what happened in the USa in 2016-2018, it is completely unclear what will happen next.
I think in no way neoliberalism will start to be dismantled. there is no social forces powerful enough to start this job, We
probably need another financial crisi of the scale of 2008 for this work to be reluctantly started by ruling
elite. And we better not to have this repetition of 2008 as it will be really devastating for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye turned to corporate evasion. ..."
"... It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present. ..."
"... In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years . ..."
"... On average, between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. ..."
"... As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement. ..."
"... Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely one of secular stagnation . ..."
"... those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s. ..."
In the early 1980s the author was one of the first to herald the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the west. Here he argues
that this doctrine is now faltering. But what happens next?
The western financial crisis of 2007-8 was the worst since 1931, yet its immediate repercussions were surprisingly modest. The
crisis challenged the foundation stones of the long-dominant neoliberal ideology but it seemed to emerge largely unscathed. The banks
were bailed out; hardly any bankers on either side of the Atlantic were prosecuted for their crimes; and the price of their behaviour
was duly paid by the taxpayer. Subsequent economic policy, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, has relied overwhelmingly on monetary
policy, especially quantitative easing. It has failed. The western economy has stagnated and is now approaching its lost decade,
with no end in sight.
After almost nine years, we are finally beginning to reap the political whirlwind of the financial crisis. But how did neoliberalism
manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? Although it failed the test of the real world, bequeathing the worst economic
disaster for seven decades, politically and intellectually it remained the only show in town. Parties of the right, centre and left
had all bought into its philosophy, New Labour a classic
in point. They knew no other way of thinking or doing: it had become the common sense. It was, as Antonio Gramsci put it, hegemonic.
But that hegemony cannot and will not survive the test of the real world.
The first inkling of the wider political consequences was evident in the turn in public opinion against the banks, bankers and
business leaders. For decades, they could do no wrong: they were feted as the role models of our age, the default troubleshooters
of choice in education, health and seemingly everything else. Now, though, their star was in steep descent, along with that of the
political class. The effect of the financial crisis was to undermine faith and trust in the competence of the governing elites. It
marked the beginnings of a wider political crisis.
But the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial
crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the
late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services
and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby
creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned
as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye
turned to corporate evasion.
It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic
period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism,
when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
But by far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. Until very recently, this
had been virtually ignored. With extraordinary speed, however, it has emerged as one of, if not the most important political issue
on both sides of the Atlantic, most dramatically in the US. It is, bar none, the issue that is driving the political discontent that
is now engulfing the west. Given the statistical evidence, it is puzzling, shocking even, that it has been disregarded for so long;
the explanation can only lie in the sheer extent of the hegemony of neoliberalism and its values.
But now reality has upset the doctrinal apple cart. In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced
very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income
while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than
it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has
stagnated for over 30 years .
A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average,
between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real
incomes between 2005 and 2014.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against
labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions;
the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine
the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.
As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of
countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late
70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none.
As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent
essay
in Foreign Affairs : "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens
that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.
Brexit is a classic example of such populism. It has overturned a fundamental cornerstone of UK policy since the early 1970s.
Though ostensibly about Europe, it was in fact about much more: a cri de coeur from those who feel they have lost out and been left
behind, whose living standards have stagnated or worse since the 1980s, who feel dislocated by large-scale immigration over which
they have no control and who face an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market. Their revolt has paralysed the governing
elite, already claimed one prime minister, and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark looking for divine inspiration.
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly
remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the "working class" was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans
described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup
poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat
in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment.
The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.
The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, is a function of politics
The re-emergence of class should not be confused with the labor movement. They are not synonymous: this is obvious in the US
and increasingly the case in the UK. Indeed, over the last half-century, there has been a growing separation between the two in Britain.
The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as
an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement.
Indeed, Ukip has been as important – in the form of immigration and Europe – in shaping its current attitudes as the Labour party.
In the United States, both Trump and Sanders have given expression to the working-class revolt, the latter almost as much as the
former. The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, as the left liked to think, is a function of
politics.
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic growth has never been particularly
strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done
better but even its growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely
one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that another financial crisis may well
beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced
in the 1930s. With this background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will be worse
off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they
are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the
mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western
financial crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most obvious in the United States,
with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of
Tony Atkinson
and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the political agenda. In the UK,
Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within the economics
profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such as Larry Summers and the Financial
Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical. The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals
and monetarists are in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognize that we are at
the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing
press or the parliamentary Labor party.
Following Ed Miliband's resignation as Labour leader, virtually no one foresaw the triumph of
Jeremy Corbyn in the subsequent leadership election.
The assumption had been more of the same, a Blairite or a halfway house like Miliband, certainly not anyone like Corbyn. But the
zeitgeist had changed. The membership, especially the young who had joined the party on an unprecedented scale, wanted a complete
break with New Labour. One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment
is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalisation. The most extreme
forms of this phenomenon were New Labour and the Democrats, who in the late 90s and 00s became its advance guard, personified by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, triangulation and the third way.
But as David Marquand observed in a review for the New Statesman , what is the point of a social democratic party if
it doesn't represent the less fortunate, the underprivileged and the losers? New Labour deserted those who needed them, who historically
they were supposed to represent. Is it surprising that large sections have now deserted the party who deserted them? Blair, in his
reincarnation as a money-obsessed consultant to a shady bunch of presidents and dictators, is a fitting testament to the demise of
New Labour.
The rival contenders – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – represented continuity. They were swept away by Corbyn, who won nearly 60%
of the votes. New Labour was over, as dead as Monty Python's parrot. Few grasped the meaning of what had happened. A Guardian
leader welcomed the surge in membership and then, lo and behold, urged support for Yvette Cooper, the very antithesis of the
reason for the enthusiasm. The PLP refused to accept the result and ever since has tried with might and main to remove Corbyn.
Just as the Labour party took far too long to come to terms with the rise of Thatcherism and the birth of a new era at the end
of the 70s, now it could not grasp that the Thatcherite paradigm, which they eventually came to embrace in the form of New Labour,
had finally run its course. Labour, like everyone else, is obliged to think anew. The membership in their antipathy to New Labour
turned to someone who had never accepted the latter, who was the polar opposite in almost every respect of Blair, and embodying an
authenticity and decency which Blair patently did not.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better
Corbyn is not a product of the new times, he is a throwback to the late 70s and early 80s. That is both his strength and also
his weakness. He is uncontaminated by the New Labour legacy because he has never accepted it. But nor, it would seem, does he understand
the nature of the new era. The danger is that he is possessed of feet of clay in what is a highly fluid and unpredictable political
environment, devoid of any certainties of almost any kind, in which Labour finds itself dangerously divided and weakened.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better. David Cameron was guilty of
a huge and irresponsible miscalculation over Brexit. He was forced to resign in the most ignominious of circumstances. The party
is hopelessly divided. It has no idea in which direction to move after Brexit. The Brexiters painted an optimistic picture of turning
away from the declining European market and embracing the expanding markets of the world, albeit barely mentioning by name which
countries it had in mind. It looks as if the new prime minister may have an anachronistic hostility towards China and a willingness
to undo the good work of George Osborne. If the government turns its back on China, by far the fastest growing market in the world,
where are they going to turn?
Brexit has left the country fragmented and deeply divided, with the very real prospect that Scotland might choose independence.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding that the neoliberal era is in its death throes.
Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere,
Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination
and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes
that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest
around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened
the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American
Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP
and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working
class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the
1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been
neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich
and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival
of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by
Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely
close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively
chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long
supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and
the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed
since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that
America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair,
with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's
European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting
the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure.
Trump's position
represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation
ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments
must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left.
He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump's appeal is to a
white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful
towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.
A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness
and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose
45%
tariffs on China , if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era
of protectionism.
Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not
mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much
else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the
nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining
ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.
End of cheap oil is the next milestone in the development of neoliberalism. It remain to be seen if it can survive the end of
cheap oil.
Notable quotes:
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. ..."
"... This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right wing parties ..."
"... austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's economy. ..."
"... There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old adage: With communism man exploits man. With capitalism it's the other way round. ..."
"... one can only hope neoliberalism is dead and/or dying.... ..."
"... Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality, their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target - Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting those very people. ..."
Quote: According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working
class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
How strange. American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle
class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody
were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. It's good therefore to know that the American
people know better than their politicians how to classify themselves.
This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right
wing parties. The LNP is extreme/ultra right wing and our Labor Party is right wing
controlled. At least in Britain you have a choice, from afar it seems that your Conservative
Party is equal to our LNP but your Labour Party seems to be a little more Left wing than our
Labor Party which is a good thing for Britain.
willpodmore your next target must be your tory government, they are doing to you what our
tory government in Australia is doing to us and if Trump gets elected the USA tory government
will do to them, austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a
fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's
economy. If you don't believe me type the 1% own 50% of Earth's economy into Dr Goggle and
see what come up.
The one thing all Left leaning people do agree on is 'fairness' and equity for all, in
economic terms it means that huge corporations pay a fair share of tax, as working people do.
Sadly Tory govts ignore the profits of corporations and fail to force them to pay a fair
share of tax. The basic problem that the neo-cons suffer from is insatiable greed where
enough is never enough, selfishness is also a trait along with lack of empathy or compassion
for their fellow mankind.
"neoliberalism" is simply unregulated capitalism as practiced by Tory governments around the
world. Labour governments usually regulate and force these huge corporations to pay a fair
share of taxation from their huge incomes. The corporations are owned by the 1% who own 50%
of the world economy and continuing to grow on a daily basis.
Yes, nothing has changed in my lifetime except the 1% now own 50% of Earth's economy. Working
people have always struggled while the rich build their mansions, both Bernie Sanders and
Jeremy Corbyn have the right idea of a fair distribution of wealth. This means these huge
corporations paying their fair share of their income in taxes to the host country so "all"
the people receive some benefit, apart from the 1%.
blaster1, the joke of the century, globalisation -- which will only increase to the benefit of
everyone eventually. You obviously have little knowledge apart from what the Tories feed you.
1% of the global population own 50% of Earth's economy and through their corporations who the
tories allow to avoid paying tax will build on that 50% how long will it eventually take the
other 99% to receive any benefit? 200,000 years?
Exploitation is high on the priority list of any Tory government, wealth should be
distributed much more fairly than it currently is. The tories only serve the rich, they have
no time or empathy for the poor. Empathy and compassion are vacant in the tory philosophy of
the world. These two components make up a psychopathic personality.
pantomimetorie yes, and England could also be if you had a government who were not merely
servants of the rich. A government interested in the fair distribution of wealth. Not a tory
government, obviously!
There's no such thing as neoliberalism, it's just capitalism and capitalism actually works,
unlike socialism.
Yes it works alright, it works for the 1% of the global population who own 50% of the global
economy, sadly it leaves in its wake an underclass of people living below the poverty line
struggling to survive. It works for the rich, but there is no mechanism in the system that
the conservative will use to force the rich to pay their fair share of taxation to the
country included in that are the multibillion pound multinational corporations who pay little
to naught in taxes also which leaves a huge swathe of the population on Struggle Street and
the sooner that democratic socialism is instituted the better off the other 99% will be.
Keep up! There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is
probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme
all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most
enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old
adage:
With communism man exploits man.
With capitalism it's the other way round.
Think they call it lobbying. Companies pay professional lobby firms staffed with ex MPs or
whatever to ' meet' ministers. The PR companies make 'donations' to party funds and push for
government contracts, changes in legislation, favorable to their industry tax breaks. You
can do it of course. Write to your mp to get your local roads, parks, libraries, improved.
Don't hold your breath.
That has to be the joke of the year if not the century!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and
the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was
double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
It would be interesting to see those growth figures with inflation taken into account or
to average them out across the whole world and not just the West. I suspect that if the
massive growth in India, China and the rest of Asia was taken into account the growth figures
wouldn't be so bad.
Excuse me? You're the one claiming rural inhabitants "have no idea" what city life entails.
That may have been the case centuries ago, but not now. Offshoring is small potatoes in the shift of global production. It may have been big news
a decade ago. We aren't a decade ago.
"Poverty = no kids" is your myth. Human history proves otherwise. Nobody's "decimating western/westernized population for profit". Is what you're about
really more white people, fewer brown people? Just say it, this is the Guardian, we've heard
it all before.
So run your country then. But intelligently, not on the basis of twisted myth-making and
dodgy race myths that we had enough of in 1945.
The left, at least as far as I know, have not been able to build up a solid set of
ideas on which to build a political agenda nor have they sought to gain traction for their
ideas in sites of knowledge production. The neoliberals were organised and waiting when
their turn came. For me, the left have fragmented and have turned to cultural critiques and
identity politics, forgoing any kind of realistic transformative agenda.
Apologies for not answering earlier.
i) Traction in sites of knowledge production is happening certainly. Again I can point to the
article for support - Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang, Piketty etc did not arise to such prominence
due to an organised left-wing agenda but because events in the real world demanded an
explanation for why neoliberalism wasn't delivering its universal benison as promised, and
indeed was showing empirical signs that it might be poisonous to economic activity in certain
fundamental ways.
ii) In my view it is quite possible to support identity politics (social liberalism if you
like) and a more left wing view of economics. At present the more enthusiastic placard wavers
are seeing identity politics as more likely to produce a beneficial change, but many are
recognising that the former hegemony of neoliberalism is breaking, and the best way to really
enhance the welfare of vulnerable groups is to promote universal economic justice in some
form.
iii) You appear to want to replace one hegemonic system of thought with another. But these
are the wrong tactics for me, since we have things to do in the real world.
By all means explain some of the properties your new left hegemonic theory should have, I'd
be very interested to hear them.
But in the end the practical steps are obvious and consist of applying left wing principles
to the modern economy. An example would be privatising the natural monopoly of the
railways.
If that sounds retro, it isn't, because we've never had to deal with an economy in this
condition before. We must proceed step by step in my view. The hegemony of neoliberalism was
damaging and lasted 40 years and counting. We must be pragmatic to be successful, given what
we know about the modern economy, and proceed by finding successful strategies rather than an
abstruse new theory that ignores the messy present in favour of some pure, simple conception
of the world backed up by the PR department. As I said above, one of the critical faults of
neoliberalism is its insistence that it is the answer to everyone's prayers. That certainty
is also the seed of its destruction, because to avoid doubts it eventually has to answer
those unrealistic prayers.
Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying
things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which
benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality,
their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target -
Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them
by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting
those very people.
Billions of Chinese and Indian have never seen a toilet in their life, so yes, they really
don't know what life in a city is. And that doesn't make them "dumb". In their domain,
farming, you don't look like a brain storm either.
Offshoring isn't a "tiny element". We are no longer self sustaining and if China slammed the
door (as they did for a brief instant on Japan), there'd be serious heartburn in the US
before transitioning.
The official western tautology is fail/fail for the public. Not enough jobs to consider
having kids? Too bad. Not enough money to raise your kids? Too bad. Due to natural events?
No, due to political gaming.
Decimating western/westernized population for profit. It's not complicated. It is you who
claim immigration is needed to leave it as it is. "Ending our ability to pay pensions by
ending immigration isn't improvement either. "
The west has no business meddling with the rest of the planet if it can't run their own
countries.
People aren't so dumb as you imagine. They really didn't know about life in the city? Every
village had its emigrant. I've no such disdain for those who made that move.
Offshoring's now a tiny element in western deindustrialisation. Your costs are too high,
you can't compete: don't blame those worse off than yourself, put your own house in order and
educate your workforce to do better than flip burgers.
"Birth control brings down reproduction rates" is a meaningless tautology. People have
been practising birth control for centuries, mainly by delaying marriage. The PRB peddles
malthusian nonsense that the past half-century has clearly discredited. I thought you were
for population growth anyway: "economies so economically unstable that population declines"?
Make your mind up.
The ridiculous boom did crash, in 2008. Maybe you missed it. I want to know how we go
forward. But people need to pay attention to what's going on outside our head too.
I correct misrepresentations of the truth such as yours.
And the problem with communism is that it suspends peoples right in favour of central
control.
Communism and socialism is a post -capitalist society, means exactly the same thing to
me as they did to Marx also.
The common ownership and democratic control by us all, of all the means and instruments
for creating and distributing wealth. 'Common' and 'social' mean the same.
Nothing to do with state ownership or corporate or private ownership.
Nothing to do with central control either . It is a post-capitalist system
which utilises the technological advances of capitalism to produce for use to satisfy human
needs, using self feeding loopback informational tools for stock measurements and control
with direct inputs at local regional and global levels to allow calculation in kind, as
opposed to the economic calculation of capitalism, only necessary to satisfy profit
taking.
The reality is that we can all choose to be rich or poor. We are free to do as we wish
(within the law).
Nonsense. If you are born poor you will most likely die poor. Poverty is both absolute
and relative.
All wealth comes from the exploited abour of the working class which creates a surplus value
above its rationed access (wages). A commonly owned society, would not have rich or poor, we
would all have free access to the commonly produced wealth, with no elite classes creaming it
off and storing it.
Other than that, mind your own damn business, if you can't deal with the arguments.
One of the biggest downsides of the rise of Corbyn and Sanders, interesting though it is, is
the oxygen it seems to be giving to several old Marxist hacks who have made a good living for
decades banging on about their discredited and blood soaked ideology, ie Jacques et al.
Recently joined by that newly hatched Marxist harpie on the block, the hipster bearded and
thoroughly poisonous Richard Seymour.
The fact is there is not and never was any such thing as "neoliberalism". What they are
really referring to is globalisation- which will only increase to the benefit of everyone
eventually. The world is shrinking ever faster and that is no bad thing. Progress, evolution,
the future, call it what you want. To try and make out that it is halting or in reverse is
plainly nonsense.
???
What I remember of Reagan,
- spent like a drunken sailor, "defense" spending, til it broke US economy
- unbounded "adjustable rate" and "balloon" mortgages, first bank bailout, bill kicked down
the road to Bush Sr., $125 billion, when it blew up
- "trickle down", wealth transfer, via having taxed public pick up the tab for not just his
defense binge spending, but also corporate welfare programs (patent office, Import/Export
bank, infrastructure, etc.)
- first soup kitchens, adults panhandling/will work for food signs that I'd ever seen
- illegal immigrant amnesty, millions
- "War On Drugs" and right after that black neighborhoods flooded with crack
Reagan and Thatcher kicking off their "gut the public of wealth" agenda.
Their story is "you're a failure". Because a) you don't work hard enough/long enough, b) hold
your household together (if you were at work all waking hours), c) don't know how to raise
decent, independent kids (whilst being at work every waking hour), d) aren't motivated to
improve your lot in life if you need to work every waking hour and e) probably need to take
stress management classes if this gets on your nerves because you personally are driving up
"our" health care costs with your irresponsible neglect of your health.
Or, as the economists tout in the papers, "Productivity is up!" Or as the oligarchical put
it, "we need immigrant work force", who'll do it for cheaper and not complain or
burden us with their need for an actual life outside of work.
Clinton is, was, and still is. despite her recent fake reversal, a staunch supporter of TPP
and other trade agreements that will further impoverish the working class. She is the
furthest thing from a populist. Case closed.
"... It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. ..."
"... In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election. ..."
"... Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme. ..."
"... As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics. ..."
"... The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. ..."
"... Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture. ..."
"... Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot. ..."
"... karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this.. ..."
"... This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". ..."
"... And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018. ..."
"... Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015). ..."
"... The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all. ..."
"... One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then. ..."
"... Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part. ..."
"... Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for). ..."
"... The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well). ..."
"... If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column. ..."
"... i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'.. ..."
"... as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site. ..."
"... the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest ..."
"... "MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'." ..."
"... Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. ..."
"... Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example. ..."
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
The person(s) who first published documents of the shady UK organization Integrity Initiative decided that the discussion is about
the Initiative is not yet sufficient and published more documents.
The
first dump on the Cyberguerilla site happened on November 5. We discussed it
here . A smaller
dump on November 29 revealed more about the UK government paid Integrity Initiatives influence work in Germany, Spain and Greece.
A
third dump followed today.
The leaker, who uses the widely abused Anonymous label, promises to publish more:
Well-coordinated efforts of the Anonymous from all over the world have forced the UK politicians to react to the unacceptable
and in fact illegal activity of the British government that uses public money to carry out misinformation campaigns not only in
the EU, US and Canada but in the UK as well, in particular campaigns against the Labour party.
The Integrity Initiative is now under first official investigation. We promise to give close scrutiny to the investigation that
we believe should be conducted honestly, openly and absolutely transparently for the society, rather than become an internal and
confidential case of the Foreign Office.
To show our expertise in the investigation as well as to warn the UK government that they must not even try to put it all down
to the activity of some charity foundations and public organizations we reveal a part of documents unveiling the true face of
The Institute for Statecraft and some information about its leadership.
...
As the scandal in the UK is gaining momentum, it is ever so striking that European leaders and official representatives remain
so calm about the Integrity Initiative's activity in their countries. We remind you that covert clusters made up for political
and financial manipulation and controlled by the UK secret services are carrying out London's secret missions and interfering
in domestic affairs of sovereign states right in front of you.
...
This is another part of documents that we have on the Integrity Initiative. We do not change the goals of this operation. When
we return with the next portion of revelations, names and facts depends on how seriously the UK and EU leaders take our intentions
this time.
The dump includes invoices, internal analyses of international media responses to the Skripal affair, the Initiative's operations
in Scotland, France and Italy, some strategy papers and various other stuff. There are some interesting bits about the cooperation
of the Initiative with British Ministry of Defense. It will take me a while to read through all of it.
A "strictly confidential" proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread
the Integrity Initiative's state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language
of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for "counter activism" through "negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back,
etc." for €50,000 per month.
The offer claims that the company can launch hundreds of "news" pieces per day on as many websites. It notably also offers to
"edit" Wikipedia articles.
In short: This proposal describes large disinformation operations under the disguise of fighting alleged Russian disinformation.
It is at the core what the Integrity Initiative, which obviously requested the proposal, is about.
But as we saw in the information
revealed yesterday there is more to it. The Initiative, which has lots of 'former' military and intelligence people among its
staff, is targeting the political left in Britain as well as in other countries. It is there where it becomes a danger to the democratic
societies of Europe.
I'd bet a weeks wages on it that this is where Craig Summers came from and what he was ! This blog is the antidote to the official
spin! It was good to here from Craig Murray very thought provoking regards tactics.we all need our own method ! But not be gagged.
I respect others ways we are on the same side .being united is the defence against devide and rule.
I wonder what the Tory's
think of this scandal they must be angry at this attack on democracy, nah only joking! It'l be the dog that did'nt bark ! just
like the media oh and the police ! One rule for them 'no rule' opression for us 99%
thanks b.... aside from wondering if this is Russia accessing and sharing this, i think the sticking point is in this "Unintegrity
initiative" going after the uk political left... that is where i think this is going to get traction as more folks are going to
wake up if they see how deep and ugly this goes in targeting their own..
i could be wrong, but if this news catches on, or the uk MP women keeps hammering away on this, i think we will see some results..
i opened the pdf... here is a quick list of their objectives..
investigate sources of disinformation, perform threat assessment, and identify opportunities to combat false narratives
debunk fake news and black PR operations
discredit and intimidate the platforms broadcasting fake news
promote democratic principles and criticize the Russian illiberal model in the public debate, online. This plan should
be implemented in every targeted country and language, including Russian.
In Australia the scale of tendentious anti-Chinese propaganda is absurd . Australia is flailing around trying to cope with changing
circumstances . Already at a disadvantage in 'reading ' the world because of her geographical isolation the clear bias of information
she now faces from the Anglo/ U S media and government systems puts her at a disadvantage in forming intelligent policies .
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Dec 14, 2018 4:38:49 PM |
link
Can anyone make a zip with all dumps and files? For sharing and archiving this would be much easier.. As i believe it will not
last long till the scribd uploads etc are DMCAed.. My LUKS+Veracrypt secured storage system would be a safe bet for archiving,
so i would volunteer..
Much appreciated!
Note that this document --and I've seen more-- presumes there is a large scale Russian disinformation campaign going on. Other
documents presume Skripal was poisoned by Russia.
Once you run with these documents, beware that you are making those presumptions yours . That may be the objective here.
Integrity Initiative got a lot of scrutiny because they used their Twitter account to attack Corbyn. In it's latest info dump,
Anonymous describes additional UK political manipulation, writing that the Director of The Institute for Statecraft Christopher
Donnelly:
... lobbied the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for an inquiry into Russia's interference in
the Catalan referendum. He invited members of the Integrity Initiative Spain cluster Francisco de Borja Lasheras and Mira Milosevich-Juaristi.
At that moment they were receiving funds from the Foreign Office, i.e. the UK intelligence paid its own agents for fake
proof of Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum and later told them to lie to the Parliament to convince it to take
anti-Russian steps .
"Simon Bracey-Lane: Currently runs the IfS "Integrity Initiative" network communications and network development process; deep
experience in democratic election campaign processes in UK and especially in USA, viz: Regional Campaign Organiser: John Wisniewski
for Governor of New Jersey, USA. January - May 2017; Statewide Campaign Organiser: Bernie Sanders for President 2016, USA. Sept
2015 – May 2016; special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process."
Whatever the truth of the matter, he can definitely multitask. Running the II network communications and development process
(cultivating, recruiting, handling?) while also being a research fellow at the II's 'parent organization' Institute for Statecraft?
I wonder how many hours he has left in a day to sleep!
Then again he seems to have form in this regard. 'Special study of Russian interference in the election process' simultaneously
as being a key organizer in Sanders' campaign. Maybe he did his 'special study' in his free time?
Pure brazen depravity. And how will the average UK citizen become informed of what seems treasonous activity? Seems venders with
broadsheets in the style of yesteryear standing on street corners yelling EXTRA! need to return so the public can be informed
of its government's activities--Social Media is not sufficient.
Bevin and other UK citizens: What do you call your Swamp?
Any thoughts as to why exactly Russia became the chief demon? It seems the hysterical propaganda was focused exclusively on ISIS
until Putin spoke at the UN announcing Russia's intervention in Syria. Then the propaganda shifted, first directed at Putin, then
generally at Russia and Putin together. Is it anger over the prevention of imperialist design in the Middle East?
It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west
became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers.
This belated realisation, that the prize that the west had gained and plundered in the '90s (from the collapse of the Soviet
Union) had managed to wriggle free, seems to be something that the west can't accept.
In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen
Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign
disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after
the Russia Gate was played up following the election.
Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit
list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped
no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump.
Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme.
Oh well, looks like its almost over for Truth, although some truth probably gets allowed if enough of the lies are also presented. So my take is the anti Russia hysteria was just a clever way of getting support for a war on Truth (fake news).
Russia now has a similar initiative said to combat fakes news from US which will likely be used against Putin critics (US agents).
The law allows them "to block online content, including social media websites, whose activities are deemed "undesirable" or "extremist."
Maybe Putin is part of the Fake Wrestling game. Heel or Face, your choice.
I see the EU has set up a rapid alert system to help EU member states recognize disinformation campaigns, and increase the
budget set aside for the detection of disinformation from . It will also press technology companies to play their part in cracking
down on fake news. Major social media platforms have already signed up to a code of conduct. One minister said the EU would not
stand for "an internet that is the wild west, where anything goes".
Macron introduced a bill recently seeking to get " judges and the media sector's regulator involved in the fight against fake
news. A fact-checking state-run website would be created and social media would have to pitch in by warning users when a post
is sponsored -- or when someone pays to give it better visibility in a feed."
I suppose the War on Truth has gone global. I wont bother to mention China as they are the role model the West
follows.
As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and
has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics.
@14 What do you call your Swamp? "The Establishment", coined, I believe, by the historian AJP Taylor.
The founder of modern journalism William Cobbett used to call it "The Thing"
The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. Robert Parry wrote about it, and its contrast with
truth, a couple years ago.
The idea of questioning the claims by the West's officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it.
"Truth" is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with
the West's "group thinks," no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes "fake news."
So, we have the case of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius having a starry-eyed interview with Richard Stengel, the State
Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, the principal arm of U.S. government propaganda.
Entitled "The truth is losing," the column laments that the official narratives as deigned by the State Department and The
Washington Post are losing traction with Americans and the world's public.
Stengel, a former managing editor at Time magazine, seems to take aim at Russia's RT network's slogan, "question more," as
some sinister message seeking to inject cynicism toward the West's official narratives.
"They're not trying to say that their version of events is the true one. They're saying: 'Everybody's lying! Nobody's telling
you the truth!'," Stengel said. "They don't have a candidate, per se. But they want to undermine faith in democracy, faith
in the West." . . here
Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 14, 2018 8:47:12 PM |
link
@15
Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front
to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the
"blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot.
@ 15 jayc, @18 ADKC and @21 karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with
the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now
you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for
this..
... now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available
for this..
Posted by: james | Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | 26
This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about
the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good".
And the "common good" is decided by paymasters. Somewhere in between are mass media populated by folks particularly averse to
thinking -- again, they were selected by the employers not to think but to write and talk "correctly". But the press/TV lords
will not chisel all details of what is true and important, and what is false, unimportant or both, so journalists can absorb it
from think tanks and briefing from government informed sources. There are also astro-turfs and so on.
And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are
the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces
of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military
and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative
body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In
other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely
double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was
mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018.
... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics
and russias commitment to going into syria..
I think we can surmise that the Russian objection to US bombing Syria in September 2013 was countered with a two-prong strategy:
> doubling down in Syria via ISIS;
> pushing hard for overthrow of Ukrainian government to: a) punish Russia, and b) keep Russia busy so that the Russians
refrain from any further support for Syria
It was a superb and well-thought out strategy . . . that failed miserably. The coup in Ukraine succeeded and ISIS came within
weeks of defeating Assad BUT Russia managed to secure the best parts of Ukraine -and- intervened in Syria anyway (along with Iran).
Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained.
History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course
. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.
So the strategy changed once again. MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan. Obama's devious faux peacefulness
that used covert action and proxy forces could not succeed against determined opposition from Russia/China. To prevail, Empire
strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that
required re-developing nationalism. In short, "MAGA".
My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even
if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through
loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before
a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.
There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms
an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these
conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links
regarding ISIS (like this one).
This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent
obeservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like
the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional!
"f*ck the World".
Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014.
Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015).
Trump was the ONLY populist, out of 19 contenders, in the Republican race. Hillary told Democratic-friendly media to focus
on Trump and did things during the Presidential race that call into question her desire to actually win. Trump is a MUCH better
choice for a MAGA nationalist than Hillary.
You were right then, and you are right now. My one beef with your 2016 election analysis is that it seems to me you shortchange
slightly the evidence of a real conflict and possibly fissure within the oligarchic elite, only certain segments of which seem
convinced that now is the time for MAGA. Others among the actual power brokers would I think have preferred HRC and 4-8 more years
of neoliberal internationalist interventionist grift a la Obama before having to finally turn to the MAGA nationalist strategy
(which given the resource struggles that will emerge over the next decades was always inevitable once the Project for the New
American (Israeli) Century collapsed, as it was bound to once Russia called its bluff in Syria.) But this is a minor point. What
is much more important is that behind MAGA is an envisioned world war on the scale of WWI and WWII in which "The West" takes on
China-Russia leading to the death of probably everybody.
"..my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and
russias commitment to going into syria..."
I think that the proper context begins with the failure of Medvedev's Russia to veto the UNSC motion establishing a No Fly
zone over Libya. Inter alia this led to a real reverse for and an humiliation of China which had large financial investments as
well as large numbers of personnel involved in Ghadaffi's imaginative schemes.
My guess, and it is not a particularly well informed one, is that after the Libyan disaster-the worst sort of imperialist over
reach and brutality not only did China realise that Imperialism was reverting to its nightmarish type, but Russians leaders saw
that a permanent alliance-until the defeat of the empire- was the only alternative that it and China had to 'hanging separately'.
And that the same went for Iran and Syria-nobody could trust the west any longer and it would be foolish, and dangerous, to continue
to do so.
The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the
one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of
the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all.
Of course, 2011 was the last in a long series of increasingly stupid US aggressions, all of which Russia knew very well were aimed
at it as much as the selected sacrificial victim.
Those who say that Saddam was about oil could not be more wrong: he was a human sacrifice, slaughtered ritually on the corpses
of a million of his fellows, to demonstrate that the USA can do what it chooses when it wishes.
Karl Rove was wrong: not even Empires can create their own realities. The extravagant and bloody theatre of decades swaggering
around the middle east finds the US not only poorer but weaker than it was in 1980.
"It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles." b
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Posted by: V | Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | 32
It is more complicated. Wikipedia is sprawling and manipulations happen on entry basis, and it often leaves "controversies".
I also discovered that it is worth to brush up on language skills, if there are any. For example, on recent events in Crimea there
is an entry "Crimea Crisis" with Russian and Polish versions, and Polish "pro-Westerners" somehow left few traces of activity.
I wonder how is it in German and French Wikipedias. In English, think tanks and deep states indeed lack sufficient counter-activity.
Why didn't you make an archive yourself? Meanwhile the leakers account at Scribd has been slashed and all the files with it. Anyway - here is a Mediafire zip created yesterday of (allegedly) all files published so far.
IntegrityInitiative.zip
. Save it as long as it is available.
@ jackrabbit, I've heard other observers make the link with Kissinger's op-ed, but your demonstration is very convincing. William
Engdahl made the same call, Hillary's not a suitable player to pull off MAGA with masses of deplorables. Unfortunately for
Anglo-American
strategists, Trump with his linear cretinism lacks the necessary wherewithal to implement and execute a comprehensive geopolitical
strategy. Kissinger comes from another era, and probably cannot grasp how far devolution has taken American elites in the cesspit
of post modern hedonism.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 15, 2018 12:54:41 AM |
link
@V
It's illuminating to see this NATO-backed operation looking at a PR firm to edit Wikipedia because this brings to mind the
notorious "Philip Cross," which, for those not in the know, was uncovered by Craig Murray and others (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
as having edited the pages of prominent left wing people and Labour Party people. In Germany, Left Party Bundestag member Diether
Dehm has highlighted a similar figure in German language Wikipedia, "Feliks," targeting socialists in that country. The similarities
of both to the proposals made by the PR firm above are eerie.
Can't speak for the French version of Wikipedia but with the German edition it is as bad as anywhere else when it comes to
social and political issues, particularly so if geopolitics (the West, ME, Russia ..) is concerned.
Two people, a biologist and a journalist, independently investigated networks on a senior editor and admin level active within
WikipediaG. What they found is rather shocking. One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost
immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content
or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then.
These guys can also be found on Youtube: Gruppe42 (group42)
Unfortunately their main documentaries are only available in German language but there's some other content 'Geschichten aus Wikihausen'
- 'The Tales of Wikihausen' with English subtitles.
Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM
It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy.
Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects
- and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part.
The BBC won't taalk about it but when it is in the House of Commons they have to
Sole result of a search "Integrity Initiative" on the BBC news website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bv9zxj
(12/12 when then question was raised in the house of commons)
Posted by: Soft Asylum | Dec 15, 2018 4:36:27 AM | 39
Such people might be some of the worst examples of humans, but that doesn't mean they're trolls. In fact, plucking some
kind of motivations out of their psychopathic minds might be a good thing for the rest of us. If people such as them are posters
here, this would allow an opportunity to study them.
You feel you lack opportunities to study them? Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the cable news.
B: this info is astounding! Or perhaps not? Maybe the fact that the spooks are notoriously inept is what's astounding? I mean
you would think that what with all dweebs working for the state (eg GCHQ), they would be able to protect their own excreta? The earlier disinfo (it's a Russian plot etc) makes sense but it didn't work!
Old Microbiologist , Dec 15, 2018 7:09:31 AM |
link
Jay @15
Sorry, I didn't read any of this until this morning. Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very
expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure
etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for).
Asymmetrical wars against tiny nations without air support are
hard to justify spending Trillions of dollars forever. That dog just won't hunt after 18 years of a no-win war in Afghanistan
(or anywhere else). So, Russia and now just to make it even more critical, China are enemies that demand massive military buildups
of equipment that won't ever actually (hopefully) be put to use. This is to fight a two theater war against two nuclear superpowers.
Basically, it is insanity but it will make a few people very rich.
The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet.
When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is
nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India
as well).
If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping
was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor
minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former
Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was
trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to
Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put
into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column.
That is the over simplified view but it sums it up enough to explain what we are seeing. It is as always all about money. So,
Putin has resisted aggressively all US encroachments into the Russian sphere of influence. The sanctions actually help Russia.
A devalued ruble is great for oil exports which are only 12% of Russia's GDP. More self sufficiency is also a huge benefit. A
partnership with China ensures the US cannot ever achieve their goals of global domination. The US military has proven for the
past 70+ years they are incapable of any meaningful fighting and that the military is woefully incompetent. The ABM test results
even when cheating heavily are only roughly a 50% hit rate. That is against "normal" ballistic missiles. Russia's new systems
already circumvent this system by mid-flight course corrections.
The biggest problem is the neocon elites really believe all their own propaganda. That is very scary.
Jayc: you ask why Russia and specifically Putin? Cast your mind back to 1991 and the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin's coup and
the theft of billions of Russia's capital resources by Goldman Sachs et al. The Empire figured what was left of the former USSR
was a pushover and its vast natural resources, highly educated population, ripe for plucking and along comes the Tatar Putin,
a descendent of Genghis Khan! Whoops!
And only just in time. Then think about the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and later in 2003 and then Libya. The Russians stood by.
But Syria was a step too far and too near!
Jayc, it's Western, racist hubris. The Russkies are just a bunch of jumped up peasants (Hitler made the same mistake), so when
they asserted their right to resist, and it really started in 2015 with the Western financed 'revolution' against Assad, it came
as a real shock to the system to see that Russia actually did have real guns that fired and real jets and satellites to watch
it all. After all, it was those peasant Russians who went into space first (Duck agogo Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the genuine father
of space exploration).
It must have rocked the bastards back on their heels. So they hate Putin! He restored Russia's faith in itself and that is
simply not permissible! And do it with a military budget a small fraction of the Empire's and one that Putin CUT by 10% this year!
Wakey-wakey!
Okay, this is a vastly simplified explanation and I'm not going to deal with the internal contradictions of Russia, that's
for the Russians to do. But it seems that once more, the Russkies are saving our tired, sorry Western arses.
Bill
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 9:29:46 AM |
link
William Bowles @ 57
I commented at the Saker at the time of the first Ukrainian war that it looks like Mother Russia is being set up to defeat
fascism for the second time in 100 years. History may not exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme.
If I were the West I would tread very carefully, after the catastrophes of the 1990's the Russians are in no mood to roll over
for anyone. The West was surprised at the weapons and operational arts displayed in Syria, and that was just the conventional
stuff....
karlofi - Britain doesn't have swamps (environmental sort), but it does have lots of Bogs. And Bog is also another term for lavatory/toilet
- so one might describe Westminster, the City of London and the rest of the bourgeois British world as one Big Bog (if only someone
would flush it).
Well, I was excited about the supposed "lots on Skripal" and thought maybe there would be a smoking gun. Disappointed (mediafire
zip linked by b)! All I opened was the files with the word skripal in the name - nothing but ultra-boring newspeak from what seem
like spotty adolescents trying their best to feed their paymasters with the propaganda they want. The only one of any interest at all was the one reporting on skripal news coverage in Greece: the author was relatively normal,
and coverage in Greece was pretty neutral and sceptical of the UK propaganda.
There were only 100 documents in the zip which was supposed to be everything released so far (i.e. all three dumps).
Is there any evidence to confirm that all three dumps were done by the same person/people? I can't help wondering whether the
third dump might have been damage control from the Integrity Initiative themselves, to try to show that there is not much there.
As I said though, I didn't open anything except the files with skripal in the filename, so maybe there is something interesting
somewhere else. It may be that by specifically looking for skripal I failed to find any files with policy or analysis. All the
files I looked at seemed to be reports from the clusters in various countries (often addressed to Simon), or pure propaganda (spotty
teenagers) with no analysis.
ZH has a posting up about the Integrity Initiative and gives MoA a hat tip for being early onto the issue. This should insure that it won't be buried but I suspect it is time for another big shiny thing to appear to distract the masses
See also Namebase, the original collection of intelligence agents.
NameBase - Wikipedia
Founder Daniel Brandt began collecting clippings and citations pertaining to influential people and intelligence agents in the
1960s and especially in the 1970s after becoming a member of Students for a Democratic Society, an organization that opposed US
foreign policy.
[Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase
Posted by: William Bowles | Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 67
That piece sums it up well, especially NATO's increasingly aggressive posture. And how self-righteously stupid the US is being.
I think 70% might be optimistic. This situation is even more like 1914 than 1914 was, in that the reallywantingwar-to-bluster
ratio looks even worse. Meanwhile Trump, with his self-indulgent saber-rattling, is like a twitter-empowered Kaiser. Imagine that
back then.
Another commenter up above says this'll be Russia's second go-round with fascism. Yup, and they can send US/NATO where they
sent Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII.
Russ, I wish I could be that optimistic. Yes, madmen they may be but they're madmen with tactical nukes! And judging by another
End of Days scenario, they actually seem to be contemplating their use, gambling that the Russians wont call their bluff! More
like the Cuban Missile Crisis than Sarevevo. So which side will blink first?
And then of course, we have Global Heating, which the Empire figures will 'take care' of that surplus to requirement population,
whilst the 1% wait it out in their bunkers.
I'm glad I'm at the other end of my life, rather than the beginning.
" we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can
ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation,
the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it". -- Frederick Engels, from the introduction
to 'The Dialectics of Nature', 1883.
thanks everyone for giving a response to either my comment, or @jayc's initial comment on what started this russiaphobia... i
think many of the answers are relevant and there is no one answer...
i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much...
i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'..
as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site... the fact that it is
mentioned in this integrity initiative data dump shows just how mainstream and 'go to' in the world of propaganda it is viewed
by the intel services and anyone else trying to get in on some of the gov't money handouts for this type propaganda.. it would
be very cool if the wikipedia site made a statement saying we no longer need donations, as the intel services of the west have
been paying us to continue... at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue
to try to hide this when it is so apparent??
"at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when
it is so apparent??"
That's one of neoliberalism's refinements over classical fascism: Just as they figured out you don't need to kill dissenters
since no one listens to us anyway, so you also don't need formal Gleichshaltung under a de jure Geobbels ministry since
the MSM will happily "coordinate" itself and really doesn't need to be told what to do. They already know since theirs is the
same ideology.
Well, I'm only optimistic about that last part if they really can keep it to just shooting and not let the missiles fly.
On the other hand I'm not at all optimistic about that. Though even then I suspect it'll hit the West worst, precisely because
any such leveling is hardest on the most complex, most high maintenance, most just-in-time, least robust, least resilient, most
top-heavy Tower of Babel. That would be the US, Europe, and their dependencies.
from the link in b's post: As we see it, the main weakness in the Russians' disinformation campaign is their embrace of a quantity
- over quality and credibility - strategy as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople, their publication of a high volume
of "easily" identifiable propaganda and "fake news", and their heavy reliance on a few biased partisan sites, dubious social media
pages and uninspired trolls. Their stories are hard to believe,...
That sounds so much like a self-description of the US-UK MSM it is uncanny. (Bellingcat anyone? for ex.) Which, imho, shows
a complete lack of creativity, suppleness, or even a low-level semi-efficient approach to the general problem of information
/ narrative control. Because that is what it is all about: much of the discourse around it is waffle, which masquerades as
'new' as it invokes 'new info' double-speak: social circuits, fake news, distribution, deep learning, connectivity, targetting,
etc. (and other terms that are less readily comprehensible..)
Hah! I think it was Goebbels who said that the biggest mistake a propagandist can make is to believe his own propaganda and
I think your quote exemplifies it! But note it always has to contain an element of truth eg, 'as shown by their lack of credible
spokespeople'. Yes, the Russians, just like the North Koreans ain't very good at spin and thank goodness. It was a lesson that
Nixon never learned, the Emperor really is naked!
on the newest thread bjd make what i thought was an exceptional comment, which is easy enough to gloss over, but i think worth
repeating on this thread... here it is
"...why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- (aren't they) proudly proclaimed and advertised,
in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for..."
The fact that they aren't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between
every two lines that they put on paper."
I'm sure Bernard is going to ban me soon but before he does, you have to read this from Ron Unz on the Huawei debacle:
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly [Sheldon] Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest,
he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps
he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters
who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed
a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on
his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China. In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions
largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political
leverage.(my emph.
Averting World Conflict With China
The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
"MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to
be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In
short, 'MAGA'."
@28 Jackrabbit
I highlight these lines of your interesting post because, in the context of the Kissinger Op-Ed you refer to, they capture
an angle I had not considered and have to a degree nudged my thinking off what had been a steady course of assumptions and beliefs
relating to MAGA that go in the opposite direction from your hypothesis.
Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback
from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. It drew from, and fed on, the angst and diminishing prosperity of the
segment of the population that had been hit hardest by Globalization of the economy, to which Imperial adventures can be, and
after are, associated. The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions
in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war
effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was
a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy.
Doing it smarter and better than Obama did seems to the ticket to legitimacy for whatever Trump does in the foreign policy
realm. Replacing ISIS with actual American troops (while protecting a core capacity to revive ISIS if needed) is an example of
doing it differently from Obama, but the net result – with parts of Syria denied to the legitimate government – still supports
stark Imperialist, interventionists goals in a different way. The Russians and Syrians have free reign to attack ISIS, but do
not have the same liberty against American troops. The flip-side is that the American troops do not have the freedom of action
of ISIS to attack Syria. This creates a static line that serves the purpose of a partitionist goal. (ISIS is being allowed to
survive to enable an element of proxy action, for harassment purposes).
I find I can no longer dismiss Trump's appointments, in particular Pompeo and Bolton to key positions directing and shaping
US foreign policy, as some kind of 5-D chess move. They are signs that he is either a hostage President, or he is in on the act.
There is so much that remains unknown, but the clear outward indicators are that nothing really has changed when it comes to US
foreign policy objectives, only the methods and approaches are different.
Remember Obama's 'Change' meme? We don't understand that behind all these guys, and they are mostly men, stands industry and
its skills; advertising, marketing, statistics, psychology, pr, on and on it goes. And billions, billions, to spend! We are the
amateurs! Remember Saatchi & Saatchi's campaign to have Thatcher elected?
A new extremely lucrative 'industry' has sprung up.
a) to exploit hugely massive data sets (Facebook's trove and money earner..) and influence ppl => attitudes, behavior, votes,
etc. For ex. Cambridge Analytica. Much of this stuff is for now on the level of a scam. E.g. Trump was not elected due to any
type of manipulation or meddling by anyone, excepting those who financed him (other story, hard bucks and bribes - not! internet
detritus or subliminal messages) and imho the US MSM - TV specially - who care more about ratings and the money it brings than
anything else.
These efforts have got a lot of press, imho it is all smoke. If anyone has a good ex. of success ? (The model is built on about
200 years of advertising lore.)
b) Further upstream is to control the information that goes out / the audiences who are allowed to see whatever info, react
to it, communicate it - other. With the corollary of repressing dissident, unwelcome, contradictory, info, etc. Been going on
since say the Upper Paleolithic.
Today, what has to be managed is the extreme free-flow (internet): the only way this can be done is:
- to limit the channel, block info or some proportion of it, make the channel too expensive / unusable / forbid, repress
- to limit or corral the users (via propaganda / coercion / permission / certification / numbers / privilege / cost, etc.)
- to triage the information, the 'news', the narratives, the opinions, the appeals, etc. which represents the ultimate control
and is the choice made by the US-UK to mention only those.
Noirette, yuo want proof? Check out 'Programming of the President' by Roland Perry, Aurum Books, 1984. It's About Richard Wirthlin
and the Mormons. Can a computer be used to elect a president? Wel it elected Ronald Reagan. It's only a coupleof quid on Abe Books.
Essential reading IMHOP.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was
not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
3pm Friday.
In recent days we have discovered that Flynn was advised not to have counsel present during his FBI interview and that the
FBI is withholding the actual interview notes. The same FBI cabal that has dogged Trump - but AFAIK, Trump has said nothing about
the Flynn case.
Yet another reason to believe that Trump is not a "populist" savior but yet another agent of the establishment/Deep State.
Michael Flynn's a well known islamophobe who'd gladly defend zionist interests to the last american soldier. He'd fit right
in with Bolton on the NSC council. Flynn in his own words: "Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind
a religion," While campaigning for Trump in 2016: ''Islamism a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people that has to
be excised "
I wonder how he planned on excising the cancer ? Deploying more stormtroopers to the levant to fight Iran ?
As Trump assumed control of the executive in early 2017, it didn't take long for Flynn to push for direct military involvement
in Yemen and confrontation with Iran: "Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling
emboldened... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."
Michael Flynn was also a fellow at the foundation for defence of democracies a well known den of zionists and universal fascists
such as Michael Ledeen. In fact they both wrote a book together The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical
Islam and Its Allies, where we find such nuggets as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Putin has declared the United States (and NATO generally) to be a national security threat
to Russia, and "Death to America" is the official chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the Putinists and the radical Iranian
Muslims agree on the identity of their main enemy. Hence, one part of the answer is surely that their alliance is simply the logical
outgrowth of their hostility toward America.''
"The Russians and Iranians have more in common than a shared enemy. There is also a shared contempt for democracy and an agreement
-- by all members of the enemy alliance -- that dictatorship is a superior way to run a country, an empire, or a caliphate."
Flynn's angle was to exploit any potential fissure to pry Russia away from Iran and China. Presumbably after having dealt with
Iran and the middle Kingdom, the hegemon could then strike a final blow to defeat and contain an isolated Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626
Documents leaked by internet hackers of Anonymous reveal how a supposedly independent think-tank based in the UK is a government
funded and controlled operation of misinformation and fake news.
At the same time that the Western powers were accusing Russia of interference in democracy, the UK government and its intelligence
services MI5 and MI6 were busily preventing the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain's
top advisory roles.
Details of the operation carried out by the Integrity Initiative (II), a project launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft,
have been published by the web site CyberGuerilla.org. It is a trove of documents allegedly hacked from II, showing carefully worked
out campaigns, costs and internal guidelines, as well as names of individuals cooperating with the network.
Anonymous shows that the network:
1. Is mainly funded by the UK government through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
2. Cost Ł1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year.
3. Has received Ł168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and Ł250,000 from the US State Department.
4. Is controlled by figures in the UK who manipulate "clusters" of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and
journalists.
5. Clusters are said to operate in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro.
6. Its activities are carried under absolute secrecy via named intelligence services operatives in British embassies.
The Integrity Initiative poses as "Defending Democracy against Misinformation," but does exactly the opposite, spreading fake
news against Russia in order to defend the national interests of the UK and its imperialist allies, influence Russian speakers in
Europe and North America and "change attitudes in Russia itself".
An example of II's activities was the operation launched last June against the nomination of Army reserve colonel Pedro Bańos
as Spain's Director of National Security. Attached to La Moncloa, the official residence and workplace of the prime minister of Spain,
the director's role is to advise the PM on existing and potential threats to the country and possible responses.
II's operation started after it was warned that the new Socialist Party (PSOE) government under Pedro Sánchez, which had just
been elected in parliament through a no confidence vote, was considering Bańos and was about to confirm his appointment on June 7,
2018.
Immediately, newspapers like El Mundo and El País published articles accusing Bańos of "sympathy for Russia."
Proof of this for El País was his "regular presence" on Russia Today and Sputnik , media outlets funded
by the Putin government. Further "evidence" was his tweet in response to a survey showing a domestic popularity rating of 74 percent
for Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Wouldn't we love to have a political leader half as popular right here in the European Union!!!"
Bańos was also quoted as saying, "Which country has everything that we lack? Russia does. We will not gain anything by provoking
Russia. So Russia wants to have its own sphere of influence? Of course it does, just like the United States or China do. It also
wants to have its markets and like-minded countries nearby."
Numerous articles also put in doubt Bańos' sanity for his participation in the popular offbeat TV show Cuarto Milenio that often
investigates topics such as conspiracy theories, ufology and parapsychology.
Bańos reflects a minority realpolitik opinion within the Spanish ruling class which opposes provocative military actions and sanctions
against Russia. He sees the need to defend Spain's imperialist interests through a European army and closer relations with Russia
-- positions also held by sections of the German and French ruling elite.
The UK-sponsored II, however, saw Bańos as a threat to British national interests and an obstacle to its anti-Russia campaign.
According to the hacked documents, at midday on June 7, 2018, the Spanish Cluster, obviously through informants at the highest levels
of the PSOE, "hear that a well-known pro-Kremlin voice, Pedro Bańos, is to be appointed at the weekend (09.06.2018) as the Director
of the National Security Department (DSN), which works closely with the Spanish PM's office (La Moncloa) and is very influential
in shaping policy."
An action plan is drawn up laying out how Institute of Statecraft Fellow and Spain Cluster leader Nicólas de Pedro will alert
"the rest of the cluster members and prepare[s] a dossier to inform the main Spanish media. The cluster starts a Twitter campaign...
trying to prevent an appointment."
Spanish Cluster members also include Borja Lasheras and Quique Badia-Masoni, writers and journalists well known for their hysterical
anti-Russian positions. They are supported by II Team UK members Chris Hernon, Simon Bracey-Lane and Ben Robinson, and StopFake Spanish
Desk members Alina Mosendz and Serbian Cluster member Jelena Milic.
At 15:45, "The head of the Spanish cluster urgently contacts the British cluster, which activates the II network in order to create
international support for the Twitter campaign. The British Cluster creates a group in the WhatsApp messenger... to coordinate the
reaction on Twitter, gets contacts on Twitter to spread concerns and encourage people to 'retweet' the material. He publishes material
written by the head of the Spanish cluster Niko de Pedro on the Spanish version of the StopFake website, which is also 'retweeted'
by key influential figures."
The Spanish cluster then sends material to El País and El Mundo to publish. On the same day, El País
publishes, "Spanish PM taps Russia supporter for National Security Director."
The documents reveal that by 19:45, barely eight hours after the start of the operation, the "campaign [had] raised significant
noise on Twitter Contacts in the Socialist Party confirmed that this information reached the Prime Minister. Some Spanish diplomats
also expressed their concern. In the end, both the People's Party and the Civil Party (Ciudadanos) asked the Prime Minister to stop
the appointment."
The following day, the government drops Bańos and nominates general Miguel Ángel Ballesteros instead.
The operation against Bańos is a graphic illustration of the inner workings of the intelligence services in collaboration with
alleged "independent" journalists and academics. The same forces that accuse Russia of meddling in European nations' internal affairs
are themselves meddling to stop elected governments from nominating officials when it conflicts with their interests. They use social
media in the same way they accuse the Kremlin of using it.
By showing the real sources of information on which they rely, newspapers like El País or El Mundo are exposed
as conduits of the intelligence services to support the suppression of maverick political viewpoints, in this case, Bańos' call for
closer relations with Russia.
Last year, El País carried out a
frenzied and paranoid campaign claiming that the Catalan crisis was not sparked by the Popular Party government's violent repression
of the secessionists, but was the result of Moscow and its "fake news." It quoted experts and specialists working for Spanish think
tanks like Instituto Elcano and Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The leaked documents show that many members of these think tanks are members of the "Spanish Cluster" of the Integrity Initiative.
The most notorious is Senior Analyst for Instituto Elcano, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi who testified last year in parliament to claim
that Russia was promoting fake news.
The Bańos case is just one of the highlighted campaigns of Integrity Initiative, but according to Anonymous, similar operations
have been carried out in numerous other EU states.
"... Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back. ..."
"... Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs of the intelligence community and have been for many years. ..."
"... I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount, and must be maintained at all costs. ..."
"... It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal than mere collusion ..."
"... "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw" ..."
"... Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair. ..."
The more important objection is that the fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed,
as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt
acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as
commonplace, then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable.
Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing
from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back.
Besides, they don't all do it ... there are honorable reporters out there, some few of whom work for the Times and the Post.
Another great article Glenn. The Guardian will spread your words further and wider. Salon's loss is the world's gain.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs
of the intelligence community and have been for many years. That these email were allowed to get out under FOIA is indicative
of the fact that there are some people on the inside who would like to get the truth out. Either that, or the head of some ES-2's
Assistant Deputy for Secret Shenanigans and Heinous Drone Murders will roll.
Scott Horton quote on closely related Mazzetti reporting (in this case regarding misleading reporting on how important CIA/Bush
torture was in tracking down and getting bin Laden, the focus of this movie):
"I'm quite sure that this is precisely the way the folks who provided this info from the agency [to Mazzetti] wanted them to
be understood, but there is certainly more than a measure of ambiguity in them, planted with care by the NYT writers or their
editors. This episode shows again how easily the Times can be spun by unnamed government sources, the factual premises of whose
statements invariably escape any examination."
I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't
care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount,
and must be maintained at all costs.
If you don't like their paper-thin answers, tough. In their view (imo) this will blow over and business will resume, with the
all-important friends and connections intact. Thus leaving the machinery intact for future uncritical, biased and manipulative
"spin" of NYT by any number of unnamed govt. sources/agencies...
In what conceivable way is Mazzetti's collusion with the CIA an "intelligence matter" that prevents the NYT's managing
editor from explaining what happened here?
That one is easy, as we learned in the Valerie Plame affair. It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal
than mere collusion.
Just another step down the ladder towards despotism. "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment
by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw"
The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these
emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.
Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual
crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair.
The humor seems to go completely out of the issue when 100,000 people are dead and their families and futures changed forever.
"We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few."
Notable quotes:
"... bin laden gave terror a face. how conveeeenient for warmongers everywhere! ..."
"... CIA in collusion with mainstream newspaper NYT. And you call this news ? ..."
"... collusion between the us media and the us government goes back much, much further. Chomsky has plenty of stuff about this... ..."
"... The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees. ..."
"... The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives. ..."
"... World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century, the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes little sense now." ..."
"... just off the top of my head I recall the editor of one of a British major was an MI5 agent; this is in the public domain. ..."
"... We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few. ..."
"... The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman" JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA). ..."
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. (sic) He broke some very important
stories by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
You'e confusing apples with oranges. Hersh seeks information on issues that outrage him. These do not usually include propaganda
for the intelligence agencies, but information they would like to suppress. He's given secret information because he appears to
his informers as someone who has a long record of integrity.
It's straight outta that old joke about the husband being caught by his wife in flagrante delicto with the pretty young lady neighbour,
who then tells his wife that he and his bit on the side weren't doing anything: "And who do you believe-- me, or your lying eyes?"
The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the
war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they
didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost
their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees.
Following the pre-Iraq
embellishment, NYT covered up its deeds by sacrificing Journalist Judith Miller. As Miller answered a post-war court case, none
other than Chairman & CEO Arthur Sulzberger jr. locked arms with her as they entered the courtroom.
The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is
to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives.
World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page
law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century,
the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic
historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes
little sense now."
NYT, a liberal icon? In year 2000, when I lived in NYC, New York Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal used to regularly demonize
China in language surpassing even Rush Limbaugh. I told myself nah, that's not the Rosenthal-former-editor of the NYT. Only when
I read his obituary a few years later did I learn that it was indeed the same one.
We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few.
NOAM CHOMSKY _MANUFACTURING CONSENT haven't read it? read it. read it? read it again.
thought totalitarianism and the ruling class died in 1945? think again. thought you wouldn't have to fight like grandpa's generation
to live in a democratic and just society? think again.
Would that we could hold these discussions without reference to personal defamations -- "darkened ignorance" and "educate yourself"
which sounds like "f___ yourself". Why can't we just say "I respectfully disagree"? Alas, when discussing political issues with
leftists, that seems impossible. Why the vitriol?
Greenwald's more lengthy posts make it clear that he believes that people who differ with him are "lying" and basing their
viewpoint upon "a single right wing blogger". He chooses this explanation over the obvious and accurate one -- legal rationales
developed by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. The date of Greenwald's archive is February 19, 2006.
Oddly, he bases all of his contentions upon whatever he could glean up to that date. But the legal rationale for warrantless wiretaps
was based upon memos written by John Yoo at the OLC that Greenwald did not have access to in 2006. The memos were not released
until after Obama took office in 2009.
Obama released them in a highly publicized press conference staged for maximum political impact. Greenwald could not possibly
have understood the legal rationale for the program since he had not been privy to them until March 2009 if, indeed, he has bothered
to acquaint himself with them since then. Either way, nobody was "lying" except those who could have understood the full dimension
and willfully chose to hide or ignore the truth. It's not exactly like I am new to this subject as you seem to imply. I wrote
a 700 page book about Obama administration duplicity in this same vein. An entire chapter is devoted to this very topic.
Warrantless wiretaps were undertaken after a legal ruling from OLC. And after Obama took office, warrantless wiretaps were
continued. Obviously since they were based upon OLC rulings, since no prosecutions have ever been suggested and since they have
continued uninterrupted after Obama took office, the Justice Department under both administrations agrees with me and disagrees
with Greenwald. We arrive at this disagreement respectfully. Despite Obama's voluminous denunciations of the Bush anti-terror
approach on the campaign trail, he resurrected nearly every plank of it once he took office.
But this is a subsidiary point to a far larger point that some observers on this discussion to their credit were able to understand.
Despite all of these pointless considerations, the larger point of my original post was that Greenwald missed the "real" story
here, which was that the collusion between NYT and CIA was not due to institutional considerations as Greenwald seems to allege,
but due to purely partisan considerations. That, to me, is the story he missed.
I find that people who are losing debates try to shift the focus to subsidiary points hoping that, like a courtroom lawyer,
if they can refute a small and inconsequential detail raised in testimony, they will undercut the larger truth offered by the
witness. It won't work. Too much is on the record. And neither point, the ankle-biting non-issue about legality of warrantless
wiretaps or the larger, salient point about the overt partisan political dimension of NYT's collusion with a political appointee
at CIA who serves on the Obama reelection committee, has been refuted.
Joseph Toomey
Author, "Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies"
Conspiracy theorists, have been, of course, telling you this for years (given media's motive is profit and not honesty). I suppose
the exact same conspiracy theorists other guardian authors have been too eager to denounce previously?
The NSA wiretap program revealed by Risen was not illegal as Greenwald wrongly asserts. As long as one end of the intercepted
conservation originated on foreign soil as it did, it was perfectly legal and required no FISA court authorization.
Mr. Toomey, in 2006 Greenwald
published a compendium of legal arguments defending the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping and the (sound) rebuttals of
them. It is exhaustive, and covers your easily dispensed with argument. By way of introduction to his many links to his
aggregated, rigorous analyses of the legal issues, he wrote this:
I didn't just wake up one day and leap to the conclusion that the Administration broke the law deliberately and that there
are no reasonable arguments to defend that law-breaking (as many Bush followers leaped to the conclusion that he did nothing
wrong and then began their hunt to find rationale or advocates to support this conclusion). I arrived at the conclusion that
Bush clearly broke the law only by spending enormous amounts of time researching these issues and reading and responding to
the defenses from the Administration's apologists.
He did spend enormous time dealing with people such as yourself, and all of his work remains available for you to educate
yourself with, at the link provided above.
Maybe you'd like to explain that to Samuel Loring Morison who was convicted and spent years in the federal system for passing
classified information to Janes Defence Weekly. I'm sure he'd be entertained. Larry Franklin would also like to hear it. He's
in prison today for violating the Espionage Act.
Courts have recognized no press privilege exists when publishing classified data. In 1971, the Supreme Court vacated a prior
restraint against NYT and The Washington Post allowing them to publish the Pentagon Papers. But the court also observed that prosecutions
after-the-fact would be permissible and not involve an abridgement of the free speech clause. It was only the prior restraint
that gave the justices heartburn. They had no issue with throwing them in the slammer after the deed was done.
Thomas Drake, a former NSA official, was indicted and convicted after revealing information to reporters in 2010. The statute
covers mere possession which even NYT recognized could cover reporters as well. There have been numerous other instances of arrests,
indictments and prosecutions for disclosure to reporters. It's only been due to political calculations and not constitutional
limitations that have kept Risen and others out of prison.
The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman"
JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT
despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA).
What outrages me the most is the NYT's condescending attitude towards its readers when caught in this obvious breach of journalistic
ethics.
Both Baquet and Abramson, rather than showing some humility or contrition, are acting as if nothing bad has happened, and that
we are stupid to even talk about this.
This article misses the elephant in the room. Namely, that the NYT only plays footsies with Democrats in positions of power.
With the 'Pubs, it's open season.
Not true. There are many examples of the NYT colluding with the Bush administration, some of which Glenn has mentioned in this
article. Take, for example, the fact that the NYT concealed Bush's wire-tapping program for almost a year, at the request of the
White House, and didn't release details until after Bush's re-election.
"... The Government leaks classified material at will for propaganda advantage, but hunts Assange and tortures Private Manning for the same. ..."
"... these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them. ..."
"... The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool. ..."
The New York Crimes. The seamless web of media, government, business: a totalitarian system.
Darkly amusing, perhaps, unless one begins to tally the damage.
USA Inc. Viva Death,
Did you hear the one about the investment banker whose very expensive hooker bite off his
crank?
I'm not sure what's scarier--that the CIA is spending taxpayer dollars spending even a split
second worrying about what a two bit hack like Maureen Dowd writes, or that the NY Times
principals are so institutionally "captured" that they parrot "CIA speak".
Or maybe that our purported public servants in the legislature are bipartisanly
and openly attempting to repeal portions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign
Relations Authorization Act in 1987 banning domestic propaganda.
America is becoming a real sick joke. And the last to know will be about 65% of the
populace I like to call Sheeple.
Very depressing. I thought we would get a smart bunch over here. The major trend I've noticed
instead? Blind support for the empire and the apparatus that keeps it thriving. Unable to be
good little authoritarians and cheer for the now collapsing British Empire, they have to
cheer for it's natural predecessor, the American Empire. This includes attacking all those
who might question the absolute infallible of The Empire. Folks like.. Glenn. It is
fascinating to watch, if not disheartening.
So all cozying up to spooks is not always a bad thing, huh?
Just my point.
I see. I thought your point was that there was some sort of equivalence between Hersh's
development of sources to reveal truths that their agencies fervently wished to keep secret
and Mazzetti's active assistance in protecting an agency's image from sullying by fellow
journalists.
And that ended his career in government service, as it should have...or not:
From Wikipedia: John O. Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President
Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Unfortunately this is nothing new for Mazetti or the New York Times, nor is it the first time
Glenn Greenwald has called Mazetti out on his cozy relationship with the CIA:
The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash
The coordinated, successful effort to implant false story lines about John Brennan
illustrates the power the intelligence community wields over political debates.
Glenn Greenwald Dec. 08, 2008 |
...Just marvel at how coordinated (and patently inaccurate) their messaging is, and --
more significantly -- how easily they can implant their message into establishment media
outlets far and wide, which uncritically publish what they're told from their cherished
"intelligence sources" and without even the pretense of verifying whether any of it is true
and/or hearing any divergent views:
Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, New York Times, 12/2/2008:
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest
choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal
critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr.
Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent" within the agency of harsh
interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not
worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama's search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are
complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush
administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a
central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said
Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a
message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted," and
had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service.
...The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn
his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the
agency's interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a "strong
opponent" within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan's characterization was
not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that
Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.
"these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Glenn - the only objection I have to your column and all your previous columns on this
matter is that I am not sure the establishment media actually claim to be watchdogs, at least
not any more, and certainly not since Sept 11. They really are more like PR reps.
The media is another tool in the [government, in this case] arsenal to help send a
message, as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
Yes. The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an
eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool.
Did everyone forget the Judith Miller article? The usage of Twitter and other social media
during the Iranian election of 2009? The leaks about the Iranian nuclear program in the
Telegraph? ARDA?
The U.S. government, along with every other government in the world, uses the media to
influence public opinion and send geopolitical messages to others that understand the message
(normally not the masses). The media is another tool in the arsenal to help send a message,
as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
We use social media to create social unrest if it aligns with our interests. We use the
media to send political messages and influence public opinion. The vast majority of reporting
in the N.Y. Times, WSJ, Guardian, Telegraph, and etc. do not reflect this, but every now and
then "unnamed sources" help further a geopolitical message.
In this country, it has been that way since before the founding fathers and the Republic.
Remember the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Sam Adams as Vtndex, and etc.? Newspapers used for
"propaganda" purposes.
Upthread I asked him for his comments on the reporting of Seymour Hirsh. He is someone
who cozied up to all kinds of people - and wound up busting some extremely important
stories in the process.
I think a modest amount of review of Sy Hersh's work will demonstrate that his "cozying
up" hasn't included running interference for the spooks' official PR flacks.
"... Bob Marley got it right.... the human race is becoming a rat race, and it's a disgrace. ..."
"... The biggest problem is the financialisation of the economy... what is the actual value of things? The market is so manipulated that real price discovery is not possible. ..."
"... We have an over-cooked service-sector economy unsustainably reliant on cheap debt, cheap energy, and cheap manufactured goods to fuel our 'high-end levels of consumption, and mobility or living standards, and an over-heated housing market that is unsustainably run according to the needs of investors and landlords rather than residents or tenants. ..."
"... What we need is a coordinated approach between our nations. Undercutting each other on corporate taxes, writing tax avoidance into law, and continuing to allow multinationals to influence our politicians and play our governments against each other is exactly the game we must end. ..."
"... Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further.... ..."
"... "Ransom". There is no better word to describe it. This (the ransom mentality) is exactly the reactionary, vindictive, doctrinaire psychology that must be extracted like a cancer from our institutional lives and the human species. A monolithic task. But identifying the cause is the first step to cure. ..."
"... these are the new medieval transnational barons ..."
@Crackerpot - The whole austerity crisis thing appears to have been engineered so that a few blinkered and unpatriotic, vulture
mafia privateers can make a killing, selling off vital state assets, such as infrastructure and ports, to the Chinese. This is
a very suspicious and widespread trend.
Bob Marley got it right.... the human race is becoming a rat race, and it's a disgrace.
I see it every day from the window of my flat, on a main road, in Bethnal Green. There's a 'mentally unstable' Rastafarian
who stands by the overground station, and shouts things out to people like "You're living in babylon".
The biggest problem is the financialisation of the economy... what is the actual value of things? The market is so manipulated
that real price discovery is not possible.
We have an over-cooked service-sector economy unsustainably reliant on cheap debt, cheap energy, and cheap manufactured
goods to fuel our 'high-end levels of consumption, and mobility or living standards, and an over-heated housing market that is
unsustainably run according to the needs of investors and landlords rather than residents or tenants.
The whole thing is going to blow apart. Our 'aspirations' are slowly killing us - they're destroying the social fabric.
What we need is a coordinated approach between our nations. Undercutting each other on corporate taxes, writing tax avoidance
into law, and continuing to allow multinationals to influence our politicians and play our governments against each other is exactly
the game we must end.
Deborah Orr:Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes
its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as
a result, governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further....
I never thought I would live long enough to see this level of honesty ATL. It should have been published long ago, but at least
the discussion now begins.
"Ransom". There is no better word to describe it. This (the ransom mentality) is exactly the reactionary, vindictive, doctrinaire
psychology that must be extracted like a cancer from our institutional lives and the human species. A monolithic task. But identifying
the cause is the first step to cure.
"... Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far. ..."
"... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ..."
"... the UK government did intervene in the economy when it bailed out the banks to the tune of many billions of pounds underwritten by the taxpayer. The markets should always be regulated sufficiently (light touch is absolutely useless) to prevent the problems currently being experienced from ever happening again. ..."
"... Traditional liberalism had died decades before WWII and was replaced by finance capitalism. What happened after WW II was that capitalism had to make various concessions to avoid a socialist revolution: social and political freedoms indeed darted ahead. ..."
"... No chance mate, at least not all the time greasy spiv and shyster outfits like hedge funds are funding Puffin face and the Vermin Party. They are never going to bite the hand that feeds them ..."
"... And in case we get uppity and endeavour to challenge the economic paradigm and the rule of these neoliberal elites, there's the surveillance state panopticon to track our movements and keep us in check. ..."
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... She, knowingly, let neo-liberal economic philosophy come trumpeting through the door of No10 and it's been there ever since; it has guided our politicians for the past 30 odd years. Hence, it is Thatcher's fault. She did this and another bad thing: the woman who glorified household economics pissed away billions of pounds of North Sea Oil. ..."
"... Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism. In fact the role of the state is simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to private parasitical corporations. History has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in policy since the 1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan, numerous PFI bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American, 1997 Asian and 2010 European debt crises. ..."
@EllisWyatt - Here's the funny thing about those who cheer the broken neoliberal model. They
promise we will get to those "sunny uplands" with exactly the same fervor as old Marxists.
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to
force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic
Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far.
The same names come up time and time again. One of them being, father of propaganda, Edward Bernays.
Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring about a "counterculture." In the
opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:
"..The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important
element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government
which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast numbers of human beings must
cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily
lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind..."[28]
Bernays' family background made him well suited to "control the public mind." He was the double nephew of psychoanalysis
pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna, and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha
Bernays.
@OneCommentator - the UK government did intervene in the economy when it bailed out the banks
to the tune of many billions of pounds underwritten by the taxpayer. The markets should
always be regulated sufficiently (light touch is absolutely useless) to prevent the problems
currently being experienced from ever happening again.
Those at the bottom of society and
those in the public sector are the ones paying the price for this intervention in the UK. If
you truly believe in the 'free' market then all of these failing organisations (banks, etc)
should have been allowed to fail. The problem is that the wealth created under the current
system is virtually all going to those at the top of the income scale and this needs to
change and is one of the main reasons that neo liberalism should be binned!
Traditional liberalism had died decades before WWII and was replaced by finance
capitalism. What happened after WW II was that capitalism had to make various concessions to
avoid a socialist revolution: social and political freedoms indeed darted ahead.
@brighton2 - No chance mate, at least not all the time greasy spiv and shyster outfits like hedge funds are funding Puffin
face and the Vermin Party. They are never going to bite the hand that feeds them.
And in case we get uppity and endeavour to challenge the economic paradigm and the rule of
these neoliberal elites, there's the surveillance state panopticon to track our movements and
keep us in check.
I know what you are saying it's just sooner or later as those at the bottom continue to be
squeezed the wealthy will sow their own seeds of destruction. I think we are witnessing the
end game which is reflected in the desperation of the coalition to flog everything regardless
of the efficacy of such behavior, they feel time is running out and they would be right.
Call it what you will - "neoliberalism", "neoconservatism", "socialism" or whatever it is...
This debate is not even really solely about money: this is about liberty , about
free choice, about being permitted to engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services with
others, unmolested. About the users of services becoming the ones paying for those
services.
Ultimately the real effect will be to remove power from governments and hand it back to
where it belongs - the free market.
voluntary transactions among free agents. That's called a free market and it is by far
the most efficient way to produce wealth humanity has ever known.
Could you explain how someone bound by a contract of employment, with the alternative,
destitution, is a 'free agent'?
@SpinningHugo - Nothing comes out of nothing and i well remember black Monday in the City.
That was the start of the spivs running the economy as if it were a casino. If you think its only on CiF that Thatcher gets the blame, think on this, Scotland, a
whole nation blames her too.
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of
logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the
fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely
ignoring what it is in practice. In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but
the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for
the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not.
Neoliberalist policies have lifted millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South
America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can
pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has
been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down,
just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from,
massive state intervention in markets (QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where
applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality, and makes
the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and
believed only by peasants happy to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality
is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves. It's an abhorrent cult
that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in
the hands of the rich.
@MickGJ - You are wrong about the first 2 of course.
Banksters get others to do their shit.
But unfortunately the poor sods who went down on D Day were in their way fighting for Wall
Street as much as anything else. It's just that they weren't told about it by the Allies massive propaganda machine. So partly right
The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created
and distributed around the globe
Which would be what? State planning? Communism? Totally free market capitalism? Oh wait, we already have the best of a bad bunch, a mixed capitalist economy with
democracy. That really is the crux of it, our system isn't perfect, never will be, but nobody has come
up with a better solution.
Barclays bank "only" paid out £660m in dividends to the bearers of risk capital,
while its bonus pot for a very select number of its staff was £1.5bn.
Fascinating! Now, one could infer that Barclays represent "beneficial capitalism",
rewarding its hard-working employees, but maybe we won't.
This is not the traditional capitalist style
The Traditional capitalist is not an extinct species but under threat. For the time
being the population is stagnant in some countries and even increasing in some others.
However, due to the foraging capacity of Neoliberal creature , competing in the same
economical niche, the size and life expectation of it are diminishing.
She, knowingly, let neo-liberal economic philosophy come trumpeting through the door of
No10 and it's been there ever since; it has guided our politicians for the past 30 odd years.
Hence, it is Thatcher's fault. She did this and another bad thing: the woman who
glorified household economics pissed away billions of pounds of North Sea Oil.
@MickGJ - No, you're right. Why let yesterdays experience feed into what you expect of the
future? Lets go forwards goldfish like, every minute a brand new one, with no baggage!
And by the way, who saved the hide of the very much private sector banks and financial
institutions? The hated STATE, us tax payers!
I think I agree with everything that you say here? The people at the top these days aren't
really of much use for anything, including capitalism. The only thing that they do excel at
is lining their own pockets and securing their privileged position in society.
They have become quite up front about it. There was a bit of a fuss last year when
Barclays bank "only" paid out £660m in dividends to the bearers of risk capital, while
its bonus pot for a very select number of its staff was £1.5bn. Barclays released a
statement before their AGM explaining:
"Barclays is fully committed to ensuring that a greater proportion of income and profits
flow to shareholders notwithstanding that it operates within the constraints of a
competitive market."
This is not the traditional capitalist style competition that they are talking about where
companies competed as to who can return the biggest profit for their shareholders this now
comes secondary to the real competition which is for which company can return the biggest
bonuses for a small group of employees.
Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism. In fact the role of the state is
simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to private parasitical corporations. History
has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in policy since the
1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan, numerous PFI
bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American, 1997 Asian
and 2010 European debt crises.
No wonder you're so ignorant of the basics of economic policy if you won't flick through a
book - fear of accepting that you're simply wrong is a sure sign of either pig ignorance or
denial, and is as I said embarrassing so its not really much point in wasting anymore time
engaging with you.
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
Of course it has. And it will continue to "fail", while provide us with all
sorts of goodies, for the foreseeable future. Capitalism's endless "failure" is of no more
concern than human mortality. Ever tried, ever failed, try again, fail better.
"... Now we see moneyed entities with vested interests, carpet bagging and flogging off the NHS and an unelected fossil fuel mandarin, at the heart of government decision making, appointing corporate yea-sayers, to the key government departments, with environmental responsibilities. Corporations capturing the state apparatus for their own ends, is 'corporatism.' ..."
"... "Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the benefits." ..."
"... The bailout is simply actual neoliberalism as opposed to the theory inside tiny right wing minds. The system depends on the wealthy not being allowed to suffer the consequences of their own greed, or it would represent revolution and still not work. ..."
"... Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the benefits. It always amusing to see neoliberal morons shout about the red menace when they're two sides of the same coin. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is nothing if not the opposite extreme of the communist planned economy. Like the communist planned economy, neoliberalism is doomed to failure. I think we've all been sold a lie. ..."
@NotAgainAgain - this is very true, it reminds me of an engineering company I worked for in
Nottingham (since gone under). The production manger was a corrupt thief. He gradually
sub-contracted the production work out to other companies in the area, taking backhanders for
his troubles.
Once all the production was farmed out, he somehow got himself promoted to
director level, where he and a sycophant subbed all the design work out. So all the
production and design was done out of house, standards dropped and the company closed,
leaving him with a nice payoff, just prior to retirement.
Some would say he played a blinder, my interpretation is he ruined a perfectly viable
company, making a very good product, and over the course of about 5 years put over 30 people
out of work.
In a just world he would be spending his retirement in prison.
Income distribution and a happy workforce is actually very good for business as well as
society!
Of course it is, but the capitalists do not know it. In many countries, including Finland,
the "condition of the working classes", ie. working conditions, have been in rapid decline
for the last 20 years.
Permanent salaried jobs have been replaced with temps from agencies, unpaid overtime is
becoming the norm, burnouts are commonplace and so on.
If in your country things are different, no mass lay-outs and outsourcing to China, count
yourself lucky!
But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their
taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments
Noam Chomsky pointed this out aeons ago though-that the American model is to use tax money
to benefit private interests through technological infrastructure.
It was ever thus, if in slightly different forms. Still it is surprising that they have gone
so quickly from their stated position at the start of the republic of a rejection of kings
and emperors to their position now of corruption so ingrained it is impossible to make
distinctions. Proxy emperors are emperors all the same, no matter the rhetoric that promotes
them.
One senses that there is very little 'going back' possible. Besides, the great Neoliberal
scam is predicated upon the qualities of the 'governments' we have and the capacity of those
'rhetoricians' with the capacity to say anything or play any role, to lick any arse, to get
elected. Such apparent strength is weakness. In this world that now exists here, we have now
entered the same world as the USSR in the eighties, where the announcement of bumper harvests
of wheat, made everyone with a brain cell groan and think
'Oh fuck! no bread this winter-quick, run to the shops now, and buy up all the flour
there'.
But there is now no way to declare that without being seen as beyond the pale-a bug eyed
conspiracist.
Still, I am a believer in the connectedness of this world. The economic system and its
mythologies are just weird and distorted canaries in the coalmine of the wider environment.
It is indicating that there is a misalignment between the way we think and what is possible
in this world. Austerity promoters and 'Keynsian' Ballsites are one and the same thing-both
pretenders that the key to the problems is within their narrow gifts
Hubris is followed by nemesis. In a wider sense what we seen now is a complete failure of
the capacity to educate and to learn,and moderate behaviour, and find some way of caring for
our 'others', beyond the core of 'self'. nationalism is essentially an extension of 'self'.
We now shall see the failure of a retraction of thought into nationalism and
scapegoating.
I predict that the population of the world will decline over the next century-quite
markedly.
The only solace is that at the end of the process, the pain will be forgotten. It always
is.
@MickGJ - Cameron said 'We will cut the deficit, not the NHS,' and promised to be the
'greenest government ever,' saying that you could 'go green,' if you voted 'blue.'
Now we see
moneyed entities with vested interests, carpet bagging and flogging off the NHS and an
unelected fossil fuel mandarin, at the heart of government decision making, appointing
corporate yea-sayers, to the key government departments, with environmental responsibilities.
Corporations capturing the state apparatus for their own ends, is 'corporatism.'
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many
aspects of financial services – that Britain enjoyed during the second half of the
20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce.
There was very little 'healthy economic growth' in Britain in the second half of the 20th
century.
Britain was bankrupt after WW2 with its people dependent on Marshall Aid and food
contributions from its former 'colonies'.
Whatever 'growth' occured after Marshall Aid arrived was scuppered by a class system where
company managers were more concerned with walking on the workers than with keeping their
businesses afloat while such discrimination provoked hard left trade union policies which
left british industry uncompetitive and ultimately non-existent.
If that wasn't enough, Thatcherism arrived to re-inforce class discrimination, sell off
national services and assets and replace social policy with neo-liberal consumerism.
Whether the workforce was swollen by women or anyone else is immaterial.
The anti-democratic incestuous class conflict latent in British society continues to ensure
that the UK will remain a mere vassal state of foot-soldiers and consumers for international
neo-liberal capitalism.
@DasInternaut - Completely agree. The performance has been poor to absymal. But this is a
failure of democratic governance because the collective interests of citizens as consumers
and service users are not being represented and enforced by the elected politicians since
they have been suborned by the capitalists elites and their fellow-travellers.
The people, indeed, have been sold a lie, but, unfortunately, it is only UKIP which is
making the political waves by revealing selected aspects of this lie. The three established
parties have been 'bought' to varying extents. But more and more citizens are beginning to
realise the extent to which they have been bought.
There is an upside to all of this, maybe I wont get modded so much from now on for being so
angry at the ideological criminals . Hopefully the middle classes will cotton on to the fact
that all this is not a mad hatters tinfoil hobby, we need more of them to be grumpy.
@MickGJ - We've already seen it. Not great so far. GS4, Winterbourne view, southern cross,
trains...............Welfare to work companies, delivering no better results than people left
to their own devices. Energy companies.
We'll see if the new wave of free schools, academy schools, and all the service outsourced by
the council perform any better.
Doubtful, as to make a profit, they have to employ poorer paid people, less well qualified,
and once they've got a contract, they've got very little competition, as when the second
round of bidding comes around, as the firms having got the first contract are the only one
with relevant experience, they are assured of renewal, the money machine will keep going!
Neoliberalism are policies that are
influenced by neo classical economics. If you are suggesting that the neoliberal school of
thought would advocate any kind of a bailout then you are mistaken. Where else have I
"apparently" embarrassed myself?
@TedSmithAndSon - This is just an inaccurate rant not a reply.
"The system depends on the wealthy not being allowed to suffer the consequences.."
Unless you are completely confused by what neolibralism is there is not a shred of logical
sense in this.
"The debt industry are the lenders who take advantage of a financial system..."
Which is what savers are. They come in the form of individuals businesses and governments.
This encompasses everyone.
"whilst paying the lowest possible rate. Wonga, for instance."
If you are a lender you do not pay anything, you receive.
"Thatchers revolution was to take our citizenship and give it a value, whilst making
everyone else a consumer, all for a handful of magic beans in the shape of British Gas
shares."
...not forgetting that she revitalised the economy and got everyone back to work
again.
"Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the
benefits."
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not.
Neoliberalist policies have lifted millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South
America. Communism has no benefits for society open your eyes!
@ATrueFinn - After they are finished, what do Singaporeans eat?
Next year's harvest (possibly of GM food which makes better use of scarce
resources). I imagine the sun will eventually stop bombarding us with the energy that powers
photosynthesis but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
@MurchuantEacnamai - I think the point is this, Amazon make money by selling books, they
avoid paying taxes, yet expect an educated, literate population to be provided for them, on
the grounds that illiterate people don't buy books, and expect roads to move the books around
on.
@theguardianisrubbish - No! The bailout is simply actual neoliberalism as opposed to
the theory inside tiny right wing minds. The system depends on the wealthy not being
allowed to suffer the consequences of their own greed, or it would represent revolution and
still not work.
The debt industry are the lenders who take advantage of a financial system designed to
push profits upwards (neoliberalism in practice), whilst paying the lowest possible rate.
Wonga, for instance.
Thatchers revolution was to take our citizenship and give it a value, whilst making
everyone else a consumer, all for a handful of magic beans in the shape of British Gas
shares.
Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the
benefits. It always amusing to see neoliberal morons shout about the red menace when they're
two sides of the same coin.
.and provides them at a massively inflated cost accompanied by unforgivable waste and
inefficiency, appalling service and life-threatening incompetence.
as opposed to the private sector, who always does what it says it will do, at reasonable
cost, for the benefit of their customers, and with due regards to ethics?
Like the Banks, the financial sector, who will never sell you a product that isn't the best
for you, regardless of their interest? the private companies like Southern Cross, GS4?
The private insurance who refuse to take you on the minute you've got some illness or
disability? Get off it! The state isn't perfect, the services it provides are not perfect,
but replacing them with private provision isn't the answer!
@MurchuantEacnamai - How would you rate how well British government has done in ensuring
markets are genuinely competitive. How well has British government done in ensuring our
energy market is competitive, for example. Does the competitiveness we observe in the energy
market give customers better or worse value than they had before deregulation? How do you
rate the British government's performance in rail and public transport, with respect to
competitiveness?
Personally, and notwithstanding the notable exception of telecoms, I rate the British (and
US) government's performance in deregulating state entities, creating new markets and
ensuring competition, as poor.
Neoliberalism is nothing if not the opposite extreme of the communist planned economy.
Like the communist planned economy, neoliberalism is doomed to failure. I think we've all
been sold a lie.
"... Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom ..."
"... Neoliberal ideology acted as a smokescreen that enabled the financially powerful to rewrite the rules and place themselves beyond the law. ..."
"... So it seems that your suggestion is for a return to western capitalism post-war style - would that be right? (b.t.w. if I bring up the whole Soviet Union thing, it is partly because quite a few commentators in this debate come across as if they wish for something much more leftist than that). ..."
"... What you have missed, is that the lions share of the proceeds of that growth are not going to ordinary people but to a tiny minority of super rich. It is not working for the majority. ..."
"... The taxpayers are left to pick up the tab, nations are divided against immigrants and scroungers and then unfettered evangelists like you can spout as pompously as you like about how much big business would like to remove the state from corporate affairs. ..."
"... Without the state there wouldn't be neo-Liberalism, it took state regulated capitalism to build what unfettered purists insist on tearing apart for short term greed. ..."
"... The trouble is Neo-Liberals do not want to remove the state at all, they want to BE the state and in the process rendering democracy pretty much meaningless. And they've succeeded. ..."
"... The biggest swindle ever pulled was turning the most glaring and crushing failure of unfettered corporatism into the biggest and most crushing power grab implemented in order to suppress the will of the people ..."
"... Nobody hates a market more than a monopoly and capitalism must inevitably end in monopoly as it has. For the profiteering monopolies investment especially via taxation is insane as it can only undermine their monopoly. ..."
"... The bankers have always known that the austerity caused by having to pay off un-payable loans, that increase every year, will eventually produce countries very similar to the "Weimar Days" in pre-Hitler Germany. ..."
"... They also know that drastic conditions such as these often lead to a collapse of democracy and a resurgence of Fascism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism could not exist without massive state support. So the term is meaningless. There is nothing "liberal" about having a huge state funded military industrial complex that acts a Trojan horse for global corporations, invading other countries for resources. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a branch of economic ideology which espouses the value of the free-market, and removing all protective legislation, so that large companies are free to do what they want, where-ever they want, with no impediments from social or environmental considerations, or a nation's democratic preferences. ..."
"... Business-friendly to who exactly: the nation or hostile overseas speculators? ..."
"... The golden age of 1945 - 1975 or so witnessed huge rises in standards of living so your point linking neo-liberalism to rising standards of living is literally meaningless. There was an explosive growth in economic activity during the three or four post war decades ..."
"... The assumption shared by many round here that the young are some untapped resource of revolutionary energy is deeply mistaken ..."
A wonderful article that names the central issue. Neoliberal ideology acted as a smokescreen
that enabled the financially powerful to rewrite the rules and place themselves beyond the
law. The resultant rise of financial capitalism, which now eclipses the productive
manufacturing-based capitalism that was the engine of world growth since the industrial
revolution, has propelled a dangerous self-serving elite to the centre of world power. It's
not just inequality that matters, but the character of the global elite.
The neo-liberal order commenced only in the late 1970s - there was a very different
order prior to this which was not "soviet socialism" as you term it.
So it seems that your suggestion is for a return to western capitalism post-war style -
would that be right? (b.t.w. if I bring up the whole Soviet Union thing, it is partly because
quite a few commentators in this debate come across as if they wish for something much more
leftist than that).
Anyway, my worry with this idea is that I am just not convinced that life in "The West
1945-80" was better on the whole than in "The West 1980-present". It's true that
unemployment is higher these days, but a lot of work in the post-war years was boring and
physically exhausting; in factories and mines where conditions were degrading and bad for
health; and where industrial relations were simply terrible. I think as well that the higher
unemployment is a localized phenomenon that many developing countries are not experiencing
(this is relevant because Deborah Orr proposes change for the whole world, not merely the
West).
There were also frequent recessions and booms - in fact, more frequent (albeit shorter)
than now. What seems to have changed in this respect is that, whereas we used to alternate
regularly between 2-3 years of boom and 1-2 years of bust, we now have 15 years of continuous
boom followed by a (maybe?) 10 year bust (this pattern began around 1980). If you asked me
which of these two patterns I preferred, then I think I'd go for the pre-1980 pattern, but
its not clear to me that the post-1980 pattern is so much worse as to underwrite a savage
indictment of the whole system.
As for Casino banking: they should reform that. Britain's Coalition Government has done
something in that respect, although its not very radical - I am hoping Labour can do more.
There is certainly a lot to be said for banks going back to a pre-"Big Bang" sense of
tradition and prudence.
Buts let's not also forget the plus sides in the ledger for post-1980 capitalism: hundreds
of millions in the former third world lifted out of poverty; unprecedented technological
innovation (e.g. the internet, which makes access to knowledge more equal even as income
inequality grows); and the accomodation (at least in the West) of progressive social change,
such as the empowerment of ethnic minorities, LGBT people and women.
Change, yes - but lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
OK, but both the claim and the link cited in support talk only about a problem in the US.
This can't really answer my point, which was that the rest of the world should not be
expected to support a change to the economic system of the whole world just because of
problems that are mostly localised to North America and Europe. People in developing
countries might like the fact that they are, at last, catching "the West" up, and might well
not care much about widening inequality of incomes in Western societies.
If you are going to propose changes that you want the whole world to adopt, as Deborah Orr
does, then you should be careful to avoid casually assuming that Africa, India, China, et al,
feel the same way about the world's recent history as we do. It seems to me that not enough
care has been demonstrated in this regard.
@MickGJ - Left to their own devices the most extreme neo-liberals would remove the state
almost completely from corporate life.
Except when the State has to step in to prop up an unsustainable ideology. Then it's all
meek murmurings and pleas for forgiveness and a timid "we'll be better from now" concessions
and the Government obliges the public with the farce that they actually intend to do anything
at all but make the public pay for the financial sector's state subsidized profligacy.
Once the begging bowl is re-filled of course then the pretense of "business as usual"
profligacy rises to the fore.
The taxpayers are left to pick up the tab, nations are divided against immigrants and
scroungers and then unfettered evangelists like you can spout as pompously as you like about
how much big business would like to remove the state from corporate affairs.
When you well know that is the last thing big business would like to do. More of the state
owned pie is always the most urgent of priorities. Poorer services at inflated costs equates
as 'efficiency' until the taxpayer is again left to step in and pick up the bill.
Without the state there wouldn't be neo-Liberalism, it took state regulated capitalism to
build what unfettered purists insist on tearing apart for short term greed.
The trouble is Neo-Liberals do not want to remove the state at all, they want to BE the
state and in the process rendering democracy pretty much meaningless. And they've
succeeded.
The biggest swindle ever pulled was turning the most glaring and crushing failure of
unfettered corporatism into the biggest and most crushing power grab implemented in order to
suppress the will of the people.
Just as IMF loans come with 'obligations' the principle of democracy itself was sold as
part of 'the solution'.
The unsustainable, sustained. By slavery to debt, removal of society's safety net and an
economy barely maintained by industries that serve the rich, vultures that prey on the weak
and rising living costs and the drudgery of a life compounded by a relentless bombardment of
everything in life that is unattainable.
Nobody hates a market more than a monopoly and capitalism must inevitably end in monopoly as
it has. For the profiteering monopolies investment especially via taxation is insane as it
can only undermine their monopoly. With the economy now globalised not even a world war could
sweep away the current ossified political economy and give capitalism a new lease on life.
It's socialism or monopoly capitalist barbarism. Make your choice.
Money that the governments don't actually need as they can print their own money and spend it
to use their countries own resources and then raise taxes to offset the extra spending and
thus maintaining monetary value. The reality is that a government should never, ever borrow
money.
The beginning period between the two world wars (1919-33) in Germany called the Weimar
Republic shows us exactly what severe austerity imposed by the Treaty of Versailles caused.
Because the German economy contracted severely due to reparations payments, steady inflation
and severe unemployment ensued. Of course the FED having started the Great Depression in
America had not helped matters much anywhere in the world. The bankers have always known that
the austerity caused by having to pay off un-payable loans, that increase every year, will
eventually produce countries very similar to the "Weimar Days" in pre-Hitler Germany.
They
also know that drastic conditions such as these often lead to a collapse of democracy and a
resurgence of Fascism.
What causes inflation is uncontrolled speculation of the kind we have seen fed by private
banking at various crucial points in history, such as the Weimar Republic. When speculation
is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) such as we are seeing in America and
Europe now, the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues its own "good
faith" commerce-related currency in carefully measured ways as we saw in Roman times or
Colonial America, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices
unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income
taxes.
In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments
imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. It is very similar to the austerity being imposed on
European Nations and America as we speak – regardless of the fact that the IMF is
trying to pose as "the Good Cop" at the moment! The damage has been done to nations like
Greece, and others are soon to follow. The uncontrollable greed of banks and corporations is
leading to an implosion of severe magnitude! It's time to open their books and put a stop to
these private banks right now!
@MysticFish - So the US who has a greater spend on the military than communist China is
neoliberal?
Neoliberalism could not exist without massive state support. So the term is
meaningless. There is nothing "liberal" about having a huge state funded military industrial complex
that acts a Trojan horse for global corporations, invading other countries for resources.
The term neoliberal is not only meaningless but misleading as it implies a connection with
true liberalism, of which it has no meaningful connection.
Do away with deceptive terms like neoliberalism, capitalism, socialism, left wing and right
wing and things become clearer.
At root a lot of the people who get involved in all of the above have very similar
character traits - love of power, greed, deceitful, ruthlessness. Most start out with these
character traits, and others gain them as a result of power.
Anyone high up in politics or business is unhinged. You have to be. The organizational
structures in these things are so synthetic, the beliefs so artificial, rigid, dogmatic and
inhuman that only a unhinged person could prosper in this climate.
Most reasonable people admit doubt, are willing to accept compromise, are willing to make
the occasional sacrifice for the greater good. All these things are what make us human,
however all these things are seen as weaknesses in the inverted world of business and
politics.
Business and politics creates an environment where the must inhuman traits prosper.
"no but the highly placed banking and financial class are along with their venal
political mates"
For sure but are they capitalists? Although they may well own capital does their power
derive from the ownership of capital? You may, or may not be interested in this
lecture on the future of capitalism by John Kay.
@AssistantCook - Neoliberalism is a branch of economic ideology which espouses the value of
the free-market, and removing all protective legislation, so that large companies are free to
do what they want, where-ever they want, with no impediments from social or environmental
considerations, or a nation's democratic preferences. Von Hayek was a major influence and
Thatcher was a loyal disciple, as was the notorious dictator, Pinochet. It is economic
theory, designed for vulture capitalists, and unpopular industries like fossil fuel or
tobacco, and usually the 'freedom' is all one-sided.
@DavidPavett - If states are too big, then what about multinational banks and corporations? I
wonder why Neoliberal ideology does not try to limit the size of these. They are cumbersome
and destructive, predatory dinosaurs and yet our politicians seem mesmerised to the point of
allowing them special favours, tax incentives and the ability to determine our nation's
policies in matters such as energy and health. Why not 'Small is Beautiful,' when it comes to
companies? It doesn't make sense to shrink the state but then let non-transparent and
unaccountable, multinational companies become too powerful. One gets the feeling the country
is being invaded by the interests of hostile nations, using all-too-convenient Neoliberal
ideology and hidden behind a corporate mask.
Is the IMF ever stop evading its responsibility and blaming others for the worldwide
financial tragedy it has provoked? Is it ever stop hurting the working class?
"Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all."
No it is not that is what you want to believe. There is nothing in this statement other
than an opinion based on nothing.
"Many people across the globe were lifted out of poverty between 1945-1980 so what does
your statement about neo-liberalism prove"
Which countries during this period saw massive sustainable reductions in poverty without
some free market model in place?
"It is you who should open your eyes and stop expecting people on here to accept your
ideological beliefs and statements as facts."
I don't expect people to accept my beliefs I am just pointing out why I think their
beliefs are wrong. This is a comment section the whole idea of it is to comment on different
views and articles. How can you ever benefit or make an accurate decision or belief if you do
not try to understand what the opposite belief is? I think nearly everything I have said has
been somewhat backed up by logic or a fact, I have not said wishy washy statements like:
"Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all."
Unless you can expand on this and give evidence or some form of an example why you think
its true then it makes no sense. You are not the only commentor on this article to make a
similar statement and the way people have attempted to justify it is due to bailouts but as I
have said a bailout is not part of the neoliberal school of thought so if you have a problem
with bailouts you don't have a problem with neoliberalism.
@murielbelcher - I don't want to go to far into Thatcherism because it is slightly off topic.
The early 80s recession was a global recession and yes during the first few years
unemployment soared. Why was that because the trade unions were running amok the UK was
losing millions of days of work per month.
Inflation was getting out of control and the only
way to solve it was a self induced recession. You cannot seriously believe that without the
reforms that she implemented we would not have recovered as quick as we did nor can you argue
that it was possible for her or anyone else to turn around such an inefficient industry.
Don't forget the problems of the manufacturing industry go back way before Thatcher's time.
"Here's your problem. You believe that banks lend savings. They don't. Loans create
deposits create reserves."
I am not claiming to be an expert on this if you are then let me know and please do
correct me. I agree banks do not lend deposits but they do lend savings. There is a
difference putting money on deposit is different to say putting money into an ISA. I don't
agree though that deposits create reserves I believe that they come from the central bank
otherwise banks would be constrained by the amount of deposits in the system which is not
true and something you have said is not true.
Nevertheless, the majority of liquidity in the bond markets (like most other markets)
comes from institutional investors, i.e pension funds, unit trusts, insurance companies, etc.
They get their money from savings by consumers as well as sometimes companies. Ok we don't
always give our money to insurance companies when we save but via premiums is another way the
ordinary consumer contributes to this so called "debt industry". I also said that foreign and
local governments buy debt and companies invest directly into the debt market.
"In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed
too high (as they inevitable are). "
Iceland would disagree.
"The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality
of neoliberalism."
Why have only the rich benefited from the bailout? You are not making any sense.
"The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality
of neoliberalism."
Why? You cannot just say a statement like that and not expand, it makes no sense.
"Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and died."
...but also revitalised the economy and got everyone back to work.
"Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for,
otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else."
Again you have to expand on this because it makes no sense.
"In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes
profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here."
Don't think that is true in most cases nor would it make sense. Why would a dictator who
wants as much power as possible operate a laissez-faire economy? You cannot have personal
freedom without having economic freedom, it is a necessary not sufficient condition. Tell me
a case where these is a large degree of political freedom but little to no economic freedom.
Moreover look at the countries in Asia and South America that have adopted a neoliberal
agenda and notice their how poverty as reduced significantly.
"I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from,
massive state intervention in markets (QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where
applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality, and makes
the announcement from a tractor factory."
Who has 5 year plans?
"In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different."
If the reality is different to the theory then it is not neoliberalism that is being
implemented therefore it makes no sense to dispute the theory. Look at where it has been
implemented, the best case in the world at the moment is Hong Kong look at how well that
country has performed.
"a massive lie told by rich people "
I can assure you I am not rich.
"Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves."
Neoliberalism is based on personal freedom. If you believe this about neoliberalism in your
opinion give me one economic school of thought where this does not apply.
"Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism."
What you are saying does not make sense. Whatever you say about that there was no where else
to turn the government had to bailout out the banks a neolibralist would disagree.
"In fact the role of the state is simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to
private parasitical corporations. "
That's corporatism which so far you have described pretty well.
"History has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in
policy since the 1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan,
numerous PFI bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American,
1997 Asian and 2010 European debt crises."
What?! Bailouts have been occurring before the industrial revolution. Deregulation in the
UK occurred mainly during the 80s not 70's. Furthermore financial deregulation occurred in
the UK in 1986. In the USA the major piece of financial deregulation was the Gramm Leach
Bliley Act which was passed in 1999. So you have just undercut your own point with the
examples you gave above. You could argue Argentina and we could argue all day about the
causes of that, but I would say that any government that pursues an expansionary monetary
policy under a fixed ER is never going to end well.
"...policy if you won't flick through a book."
My point was that when people quote a source they tend to either quote the page that the
point comes from. To be honest if this book is telling you that neoliberalism and
neoclassical are significantly different (which you seemed to suggest in you earlier post)
then I would suggest put the book down.
"Google, Amazon and Apple... avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more
powerful than governments."
Yes to the first, no to the second. Corporations with revenues exceeding the GDP of a small nation have quite a lot of power:
Exxon's revenue is between the GDP of Norway and Austria. In Finland Nokia generated 3 4 % of the GDP for a decade and the government bent backwards
to accommodate its polite requests, including a specific law reducing the privacy of
employees' emails.
We percieve a problem in (most of) Europe and North America because our economies are
growing more slowly than this, and in some cases not at all. The global growth figure comes
out healthy because of strong growth in the emerging countries, like China, Brazil and
India, who are narrowing the gap between their living standards and ours. So, the world as
a whole isn't broken, even if our bit of it is going through a rough patch.
@Fachan - Except that it isn't capitalism that was being criticized here, but neoliberalism:
a distinction that's often lost on neoliberals themselves, ironically.
I'm sure that Denis Healy and any number of African economists would confirm that the IMF is
quite simply a refuge of absolutely last resort, when investor confidence in your economy is
so shattered that the only way ahead is to open the shark gates and allow big money to
plunder whatever value remains there, without the benefit of any noticeable return for your
people. Greece is but one more victim of a syndrome that encompasses all the science and
forensic analysis of ritual sacrifice.
@OneCommentator - don't confuse economic deregulation which acted as handmaiden to global
finance and multinationals as economic freedoms for population
China's govt was doing what china's govt had decided to do from 1978 BEFORE the election
of Thatcher in 1979 or Reagan in 1980 (office from Jan 1981), so very little correlation
there I think
The GATT rounds whether you agree with their aims or not were the products of the post war
decades, again before Thatcher and Reagan came to power
The golden age of 1945 - 1975 or so witnessed huge rises in standards of living so your
point linking neo-liberalism to rising standards of living is literally meaningless. There
was an explosive growth in economic activity during the three or four post war decades
@theguardianisrubbish - you can't get away with this
She DID not get everyone back to work again. There were two recessions at either end of the 1980s. She TRIPLED unemployment during the first half of the 1980s and introduced the phenomenon
of high structural unemployment and placing people on invalidity benefits to massage the
headline unemployment count. Give us the figures to back up your assertion that she "got
everyone back to work again." I suspect that you cannot and your statement stands for the
utter nonsense that it is in any kind of reality.
A few months after she was forced out Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont in 1991 during yet
another recession declared that "unemployment was a price worth paying"!!!
Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all. Many people across the globe were lifted out of poverty between 1945-1980 so
what does your statement about neo-liberalism prove
It is you who should open your eyes and stop expecting people on here to accept your
ideological beliefs and statements as facts.
"The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached:
adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big
State."
That's glib and inaccurate. A better read about the IMF from an insider:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ Digest: the biggest problem the IMF have to deal with in bailouts is always the politics
of cronyism; free-market oligarchs and government in cahoots.
"Many IMF programs "go off track" (a euphemism) precisely because the government can't
stay tough on erstwhile cronies, and the consequences are massive inflation or other
disasters. A program "goes back on track" once the government prevails or powerful oligarchs
sort out among themselves who will govern -- and thus win or lose -- under the IMF-supported
plan. The real fight in Thailand and Indonesia in 1997 was about which powerful families
would lose their banks. In Thailand, it was handled relatively smoothly. In Indonesia, it led
to the fall of President Suharto and economic chaos."
Generally whoever happens to be in opposition at the time. This made the LibDems
the ideal (sorry) choice for a long time but then they broke a long-standing if unspoken
promise that they would never actually be in government.
Last weekś Economist has some very interesting stuff from the British Social
Attitudes survey which shows the increasing drift away from collectivist ideals towards
liberalism over each succeeding generation.
The assumption shared by many round here that the young are some untapped resource of
revolutionary energy is deeply mistaken
"... The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe ..."
"... The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity", have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask. ..."
"... Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the problem. ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
"... Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is
created and distributed around the globe
Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT First published on Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT
The IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr. Photograph: Boris Roessler/DPA FILE T he International Monetary Fund has admitted that some
of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was
"bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived
happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course,
its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the
Big State. Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves
– and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial
and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules,
and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments
have been obliged to limit their activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task,
supposedly, is to get the free market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatisation of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realizing that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
"... The era of neoliberalism has seen a massive increase in government, not a shrinkage. The biggest change is the role of governments - to protect markets rather than to protect the rights and dignities of its citizens. When viewed by outcome rather than ideological rhetoric, it becomes increasingly clear that neoliberalism has nothing to do with shrinking the state, freeing markets, or freeing the individual, and everything to do with a massive power grab by a global elite. ..."
"... What was the billions of pounds in bank bailout welfare and recession on costs all about? You tell me. All the result of the application of your extremist free market ideology? Let the banks run wild, they mess up and the taxpayer has to step in with bailout welfare and pay to clear up the recession debris ..."
"... Market participants and their venal political friends have during the past 30 years of extremist neo-liberal ideology rigged, abused, distorted and subverted their market and elite power to tilt the economic and social balance massively in their favour ..."
"... Neo liberalism = the favoured ideology of the very rich and powerful elite ..."
"... at last somebody is looking at globalisation and asking whose interests is it designed to serve? It certainly ain't for the people. ..."
"... the highly placed banking and financial class are along with their venal political mates ..."
"... We've had three decades of asset stripping in favor of the rich elites and look at the mess we're in now. ..."
"... I strongly believe that people are not being told the full story. Like the NSA surveillance revelation, the effects will not be pretty when the facts are known. No country needs the IMF. ..."
"... The mythology surrounding deficits and national debt is a religion that the world is in desperate need of debunking. Like religion, the mythology is used as a means of power and entrenchment of privilege for the Ruling Caste, not the plebs (lesser mortals). ..."
This article is a testament to our ignorance. Orr is no intellectual slouch, but somehow,
like many in the mainstream, she still fails to address some fundamental assumptions and thus
ends up with a muddled argument.
"What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;"
Lending has not stopped - it's just moved out of one market into another. Banks are making
profits, and banks profit are made by expanding credit.
Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and
faceless, to be efficient and responsive.
Yes and no. There is a difference between what is preached and what happens in practice. The
era of neoliberalism has seen a massive increase in government, not a shrinkage. The biggest
change is the role of governments - to protect markets rather than to protect the rights and
dignities of its citizens. When viewed by outcome rather than ideological rhetoric, it
becomes increasingly clear that neoliberalism has nothing to do with shrinking the state,
freeing markets, or freeing the individual, and everything to do with a massive power grab by
a global elite.
@MurchuantEacnamai - well righty ideologues such as yourself and your venal political
acolytes have utterly failed to support the case or institute measures that: "apply effective
democratic governance to ensure market
What was the billions of pounds in bank bailout welfare and recession on costs all about?
You tell me. All the result of the application of your extremist free market ideology? Let
the banks run wild, they mess up and the taxpayer has to step in with bailout welfare and pay
to clear up the recession debris
Market participants and their venal political friends have during the past 30 years of
extremist neo-liberal ideology rigged, abused, distorted and subverted their market and elite
power to tilt the economic and social balance massively in their favour
You the taxpayer are good enough to bail us out when we mess up but then we demand that
your services are cut in return and that your employment is ever more precarious and wages
depressed (at the lower end of the scale - never ever the higher of course!! That's the
neo-liberal deal isn't it
Neo liberalism = the favoured ideology of the very rich and powerful elite and boy don't
they know how to work its levers
Very insightful commentary and at last somebody is looking at globalisation and asking whose
interests is it designed to serve? It certainly ain't for the people. Amazing it's been
approved on a UK liberal newspaper as well!
@Fachan - There was nothing in the article about envy. It was an exposition of the failure of
our present system which allows the rich to get ever richer. That would be fine if it weren't
for the fact that the increasing disparity in wealth is bringing down the economy and making
it less productive while leaving a large part of the population in, or on the verge of,
poverty.
@CaptainGrey - but we're not talking about that form of capitalism are we?
Surely you must realise that there are very very different forms of capitalism. The capitalism that reigns now would not have permitted the creation of the NHS had it not
been devised in the1940s when a very different type of capitalism reigned. Its political acolytes and its cheerleader press would have denounced the NHS as an
extremist commie idea!!
The Chicago boys swarmed into eastern Europe after 1989 to introduce a form of gangster
unbridled capitalism. The very Chicago boys led by Milton Friedman who used the dictator Pinochet's Chile as
test bed for their ideology from September 1973 after the coup that overthrew Allende
The neo-liberal order commenced only in the late 1970s - there was a very different order
prior to this which was not "Soviet Socialism" as you term it.
As such this extremist rich man's ideological experiment has had a long innings and has
failed as the events of 2008 laid bare for all to see - it has been tried out disastrously on
live human beings for 34 years and has now been thoroughly discredited with the huge bank
bailouts and financial crash and ensuing and enduring recession It was scarcely succeeding
prior to this with high entrenched rates of unemployment, frequent recessions/booms and busts
and unsustainable property bubbles and deregulated unstable speculative aka casino banking
activity
1. Neoliberalism cannot be pinned on one party alone. It was accepted by the Thatcher
government, but no Prime Minister since has seriously challenged it.
2. Neoliberalism is logically contrary to conservative values. Either there are certain
moral imperatives so important that it is worth wasting money over them, or there are not. No
wonder that Tories are torn in two, not to mention Labour politicians who also try to combine
neoliberalism and moral principle.
3. Saying "even Adam Smith" is understandable but unfair. His work was rather enlightened
in the context of mercantilism, and of course the Wealth of Nations was not his only book.
Others will know his work better than me, but I think he dwells rather strongly on problems
of persistent poverty.
4. The political and redistributive functions of nations are indeed damaged by neolib, but
I don't think there is any realistic way of getting that power back without applying capital
controls. If we apply capital controls, all hell breaks loose.
5. Ergo, we are stuck with a situation where neolib is killing democracy, distributive
justice and conservative moral values, but there is nothing we can do about it without
pulling the plug altogether and unleashing a sharp drop in wealth and 1930s nationalistic
havoc. A bit of a tragedy, indeed.
Deborah Orr: The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it
wags its finger at governments that run up debt.
I strongly believe that people are not being told the full story. Like the NSA
surveillance revelation, the effects will not be pretty when the facts are known. No country needs the IMF. Any national government with its own national currency
sovereignty can pay its own debts within its own country with its own currency. International
borrowing in foreign markets is the biggest myth since religion. But since neoliberalism and
its inherent myths have been swallowed whole for so long, we are still at the stage where the
child points and laughs at the nude emperor. The fallout from the revelation and remedy is to
follow.
The problem with the Eurozone is not that the Euro is the "national" currency. Control of
the Euro resides with the European Central Bank, not the Troika (European Commission,
European Central Bank, IMF). The European Central Bank, as sole controller of the Euro (the
"national" currency), can issue funds to constituent Eurozone states to the extent necessary.
I challenge anyone to demonstrate how any central bank does not have power over its own
currency!
The mythology surrounding deficits and national debt is a religion that the world is in
desperate need of debunking. Like religion, the mythology is used as a means of power and
entrenchment of privilege for the Ruling Caste, not the plebs (lesser mortals).
@DavidPavett - Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are
certainly no leads on this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray
Gray wrote this in the Guardian in 2007:
Whether in Africa, Asia, Latin America or post-communist Europe, policies of wholesale
privatisation and structural adjustment have led to declining economic activity and social
dislocation on a massive scale
This doesn't seem to support Orrś assertion that he is calling for a
structural adjustment, rather the opposite. I'ḿ not really familiar with Grayś work
but he seems to be rather against the universal imposition of any system, new or old.
@CaptainGrey - Capitalism is not an undifferentiated mass. Late-stage neoliberal
hypercapitalism as practiced in the US and increasingly in the UK is a very different beast
than the traditional European capitalist social democracy or the Nordic model, which have
been shown to work relatively well over time. In fact, neoliberal capitalism - the sort Orr
is talking about here - is marked by increasing decline both in the state and in the economy,
as inequality in wealth distribution creates a society of beggars and kings instead of
spenders and savers. The gains achieved through carefully regulated capitalism won't stick
around in the free-for-all conditions preferred by those whose ideology demands the sell-off
of the state.
@PeterWoking - For some parts of the world , yes they are more affluent now , but a huge part of the globe is still without
food and water .
I think de regulation of the financial sector has caused a huge amount of damage to the world all round and
to be honest, i expect more of the same as the Bankers are still in control.
"... This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion. ..."
"... Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war! ..."
"... These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush. ..."
"... Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday, now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the " modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against President Trump." ..."
We are in a showdown moment. At this week's Group of 20 Summit -- only three days away, in
Buenos Aires, there is the potential for Great Power diplomacy in the direction of a New
Paradigm of foreign relations, as an outcome of the sideline meetings of heads of state and
government of the United States, China, Russia, India and others.
The growing momentum for New Paradigm economic development is seen in high-level events this
month in six Western European nations: in Germany, the "Hamburg Summit: China Meets Europe"
(Nov. 26-27); in France, the Lyon "Franco-Chinese Forum" (Nov. 26-28); in Spain, President Xi
Jinping's state visit (Nov. 27-29); in Portugal, Xi's visit (Dec. 4-5); in Italy, a new
Xinhua-associated Italian financial media service will be set up (Nov. 6 agreement); in Norway,
the first Polar Route icebreaker delivery of Yamal LNG, for transshipment from the northern
port of Honnigsvag.
This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires
gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire
crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion.
Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in
Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25,
Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the
"Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an
offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against
Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding
world war!
These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the
spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and
Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga
Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward
in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The
Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush.
The Nov. 25 Ukrainian naval breach of Russian territorial waters was long pre-planned. As
the Italian military journal Difesa Online wrote on Nov. 25, "it was evident to all
those who follow local events that for some days already, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine
was trying to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow in the Crimean waters." Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, said the same yesterday, adding a warning. "We
are talking about a pre-planned, deliberate, and now realized large-scale provocation.... I
think everybody should be careful next time. I think there will be a next time, considering
what is happening now."
President Donald Trump's first response to the Ukraine incident, Nov. 26, was to express
concern, and hopes for settlement. "We do not like what's happening, either way; ... hopefully,
it will get straightened out." President Vladimir Putin will issue his statement on this
incident in a few days.
From London, however, comes a raving "script" of what Trump and the West must do against
Russia. It is the featured item on the website of the Integrity Initiative, which is a British
intelligence black war propaganda operation. Its funding is from the U.K. Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. Its Nov. 26 posting is titled, "West Is Once Again Failing Test Set by
Russian Aggression," by Edward Lucas, formerly of The Economist , and a longtime
Russia-hater, who wrote such books as Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the
West (2012) and The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West (2nd
ed., 2014). Lucas calls for "kinetic, symbolic, and financial measures" against Russia. This is
to include, the West sending military aid to Ukraine, running a NATO flotilla to the Ukrainian
port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, putting sanctions on Russian officials and businessmen
present in the West, and cutting Russia off from Western finance. Lucas says that the West
didn't act against Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, but they must act now against
Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Lucas is part of the British "cluster" of Integrity Initiative's operatives, which also
includes former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood of Orbis Business Intelligence,
the firm of "former" MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who fabricated the infamous anti-Trump
dossier. These figures are at the heart of the coup operations against Trump, and before that,
the Obama Administration election subversion.
Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday,
now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the "
modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that
it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against
President Trump."
We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the activities of the
'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government. The declared goal of the project is to counteract
Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent
intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in
Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of
political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in
London at the head of it.
As part of the project Britain has time and again intervened into domestic
affairs of independent European states. A most demonstrative example is operation
'Moncloa' in Spain. Britain set to prevent Pedro Baños from appointment to the
post of Director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took the Spanish
cluster of the Integrity Initiative only a few hours to accomplish the task.
London's near-term plans to create similar clusters include Latvia, Estonia,
Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Armenia, Ukraine, Moldova, Malta, Czechia,
countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Georgia, Hungary, Cyprus, Austria, Switzerland, Turkey, Finland, Iceland, Denmark,
and the USA.
All the work is done under absolute secrecy via concealed contacts in British
embassies, which gives rise to more suspicion that Britain uses plausible excuse to
create a global system of information influence and political interference into
affairs of other countries.
Covert structures for political and financial manipulative activities under control
of British secret services are created not only in the EU countries but also on
other continents. In point of fact, quiet colonization of both former British
neighbors in the EU and NATO allies is taking place.
The government of Great Britain has to come out of the dark and declare straight
its intentions and unveil the results of the Integrity Initiative activities!
Otherwise, we will do it!
Today, we make public a part of the documents we have available. In case London
gives no response to our demands during the following week, we will reveal the rest
of the documents that contain many more secrets of the United Kingdom.
Isn't this interesting? A UK program to propagandize US and European audiences is set up to demonize Russia around the same time
GCHQ and MI6 are busy spying on US presidential candidates and then ultimately doing their best to throw an election over
here... while trying to frame Russia... for trying to throw an election over here. Cute right?
The head of MI6, the UK's intelligence service, hopes to recruit a new generation of
tech-savvy spies, with a passionate speech urging graduates to protect the homeland against the
arch nemesis who subverts the UK way of life.
"The era of the fourth industrial revolution calls for a fourth generation of espionage," Alex
Younger will say at St. Andrews University on 3rd December.
To lure young Brits into the spy agency who otherwise might not have seen themselves in MI6,
Younger paints an image of a clever arch nemesis –Russia– which can only be stopped
with the help of brilliant young minds from all sorts of backgrounds, not just by the snobbish
Oxbridge graduates typically associated with the service.
Fresh blood is needed to defend UK web domains against cyber-attacks, the spread of fake
news and interference in domestic politics, Alex Younger will say, at the same time praising
the old guard for "exposing" Russia in the highly-controversial Salisbury attack.
Russia, or any other UK adversary, better "not underestimate our determination and our
capabilities, or those of our allies," Younger's speech warns.
Hardly historic friends and bitter Cold War rivals, the UK and Russia have seen their
relations slip to new lows in March, following the poisoning of ex-Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia. London immediately pinned the blame for the Salisbury incident
directly on the Kremlin, and rejected any idea of an open joint investigation with Russia,
insisting its own probe would suffice to make the case and then punishing Moscow with
sanctions.
Moscow is also perpetually facing accusations of cyberwarfare against other states and
attempts to undermine democracy and to influence the political process within those countries.
And despite multiple reassurances that Moscow could not care less about the internal political
struggles in foreign states, London and British mass media continue to vilify Russia with
bizarre reports, like half of London's Russian community are spies for the Kremlin.
Claims of 'Russian meddling' look particularly hypocritical in the wake of a leak that
exposed the Integrity Initiative – a group that claims to be fighting back against
'Russian misinformation' – being a clandestine network of influencers that manipulate
European politics with the British government's backing.
The anti-Russia paranoia in the UK arguably reached its peak over the weekend, when military
bases across the nation issued security alerts after a Russian TV crew was accused of spying
outside the army's secret cyber warfare headquarters.
International hacker group Anonymous went ahead with its efforts to counter what it calls
Britain's interference with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. In a second dump of
secret documents within two weeks, the hacktivists disclose more details on the ongoing
UK-funded, anti-Russia information campaign spreading across Europe. The second batch of
documents leaked by Anonymous unravels more information on the activities of the Integrity
Initiative (II), a UK-based NGO ostensibly founded to counter disinformation and defend
democratic processes from malign influence. According to
the first documents leaked by the hacktivist organization last month, the project was in
fact a "large-scale information secret service" sponsored and created by London to tackle
'Russian propaganda.'
However, the latest leak suggests that "the British government goes far beyond and exploits
the Integrity Initiative to solve its domestic problems inside the United Kingdom by defaming
the opposition."
Discrediting UK Opposition
Anonymous refers to a "scorching" article that surfaced in
The Times on November 25 and was dedicated to Seumas Milne, director of strategy and
communications under Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Times' official Twitter account promoted
the piece three times within 24 hours on social media -- the only case for all of its articles,
Anonymous says. The hacktivists add that the Integrity Initiative retweeted the "defamatory"
article right after its publication (the post is now unavailable, but Anonymous provided a
screengrab of the retweet).
The group announced in November that the II constituted a network of clusters across Europe,
which sought to tamper with domestic affairs of several European countries such as France,
Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Spain, and Montenegro.
Countering Russia on German Soil
Another part of the leak is an interim report on the
establishment of a German cluster, which was purportedly written by Hannes Adomeit, a German
political expert specialising in Russian foreign policy. According to the uncovered documents,
the German cluster is coordinated by suspected MI6 agent Harold Elletson.
The report focuses mainly on research of Germans' attitudes toward Russia. Adomeit says that
the so-called "Russian narrative" on the origins of the crisis in Moscow's relations with the
West is "widely accepted by German public opinion." He adds that further research would be
carried out to examine "the reasons for the great receptivity of the Russia narrative" in
Germany.
He also addresses the case of Andrei Kovalchuk, a Russian arrested in Germany on suspicion
of smuggling cocaine to Moscow from Argentina. Kovalchuk was extradited to Russia in late July
-- much to the dissatisfaction of Adomeit, who suggests that German prosecutors could have
"made an effort" to question him and dig up some dirt on Russia.
Watching Russia's Reaction to Catalan Events
The activities of the Integrity Initiative's Spanish cluster were partly revealed by
Anonymous in the first leak on the project. However, a newly unveiled document titled
"Cluster
Breakdown" identifies people associated with the Spanish chapter.
The list includes territorial minister Jose Ignacio Sanchez Amor, MEP Fernando Maura, head
of Spain's peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic Dionisio Urteaga Todo, European
Commission Speaker Dimitri Barua, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fernando Valenzuela
Marzo, head of Spanish delegation to NATO PA Ricardo Blanco Torno, former defence minister
Eduardo Serra Rexach. Other affiliates include foreign affairs reporters and pundits from
Spanish think tanks: the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, the European Council on
Foreign Relations, and the Elcano Royal Institute.
The Spanish cluster was apparently closely watching Russia's reaction to the movement in
support of Catalan independence in 2016. According to another leaked
interim report , the project's members were disappointed with Russia's moderate position on
the situation in Spain. However, they claimed, while Vladimir Putin insisted that the issue of
Catalan sovereignty was Spain's internal affair, he was happy to watch Europe "take its own
medicine" (a reference to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence).
This is why, they said, the Russian media took advantage of the 2016 developments in
Catalonia to portray the European Union as "declining, undemocratic and troubled". They went on
to link the media coverage of the Catalan events in Russia to Russia's alleged disinformation
campaign against the West.
The authors contend that given that Catalonia has become part of Russia's "big narrative
about the West," Russian meddling has also become part of the debates in Spain. "This
represents a clear window of opportunity" for promoting anti-Russia sentiment, they
conclude.
Skripal Case Coverage in Greece
The Integrity Initiative's Greek cluster was keeping a close eye on the
media coverage of the Salisbury poisoning in local newspapers. They went to considerable
lengths, studying 193 articles across six major media outlets. It seems, however, that the
result of all the hard work was rather unsatisfactory: the authors confess that the majority of
Greek newspapers adopted a neutral stance towards the Skripal case.
They claim that the Greek media were influenced into not taking sides and remaining
unbiased. "The strong pro-Russian sentiment in the Greek public opinion seems to have
influenced the Greek newspapers not to emphasize Russia's involvement."
The Integrity Initiative has yet to comment on this information dump. Anonymous claimed that
it released the second batch of documents after the EU leaders and international organisations
had ignored its first disclosure. The group accused the II and its sponsors of failing to "give
assurances that the network of clusters will only be used to counter Russia's disinformation
policy."
The "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed
to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth
Yanks.
Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W.
Bush's "poodle" for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into
Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton's dogsbody in the no
less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.
On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South
Korea, and
so many other useless so-called allies . We control their intelligence services, their
military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial
systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impotent ire at
discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she –
did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you're sorry.
These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar
around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries
answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the
USSR's Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact
refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other
Pact forces to cross its territory.
By contrast, during NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft
access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most
Romanians' opposition to the campaign.)
But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.
To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to
the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion
in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington
"power couple" – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American
politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA
Victor logo . (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Whether this portends a real shift in
American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable .
Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in
charge.)
Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of
World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and
financially, eclipsing Britannia's declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to
play the leading role. That didn't mean, however, that London trusted the Americans' ability to
manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar , the
British attitude of "
superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex " was "nicely
captured" in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK's postwar loan:
In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
"It's true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains."
Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by
exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond.
It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston
Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies
like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration
(NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their
UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called
"Five Eyes" of the tight Anglosphere spook community, infamous
for spying on each others' citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic
surveillance .
Despite not having two farthings to rub together,
impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn't fully ended until 1954 – had
a prime seat at the table fashioning the world's postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods
conference was largely an Anglo-American affair , of which the
aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter
White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.
American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn't have
much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current ( and hopefully last ) Saudi state – and didn't
assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by
President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much
of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with
France , the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including
taking a decisive
role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely
stepped into Britain's role managing the "East of Suez," the former suzerain was by no means
dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty
Organization (CENTO) in 1955.
CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain,
the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer
roots, going back at least to the
Crimean War in the 1850s . The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia
are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power
is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany,
then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia
warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving
Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by
Andrew
Lambert , professor of naval history at King's College London, the Crimean War still echoes
today :
"In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it's Britain and
Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which
is much larger than modern Turkey -- it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia,
and also Egypt and Arabia -- is a declining empire. But it's the bulwark between Russia,
which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to
open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific.
And it's really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit
like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really
run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the
fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going
to be the fulcrum for that fighting."
Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British
obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for
control of petroleum, the life's blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and
early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar
considerations might even support Jimmy Carter's taking up much the same position, declaring in
1980 that "outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The USSR was then a superpower and
we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.
But what's our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet
Union is gone and the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national
interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as
allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK
establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.
In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about
an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances
– without which Britain is a bit player – but
openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow ? To what lengths would they go to stop
him?
Say 'hello' to Russiagate!
One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign's "collusion" with Moscow
was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some "
hands across the water " to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at
Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it's clear that while evidence of
Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK's hand
in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible
rapprochement between the US and Russia .
As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who's actually Russian. The only
basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the
whole operation
originated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele , the British "ex" spy who wrote
it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The
notion that Steele, who hadn't been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts
is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence
with White House staff?)
Andrew Wood , a
former British ambassador to Russia Stefan Halper , a dual US-UK citizen. Ex-MI6 Director
Richard Dearlove . Robert Hannigan , former director of GCHQ; there is
reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under
FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied
the agency had engaged in such spying. Alexander Downer , Australian diplomat (well, not
British but remember the Five Eyes!). Joseph Mifsud , Maltese academic and suspected British
agent.
At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted
FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would
shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by
– no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May . Was she seeking
to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings'?
It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs
with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn't just the UK and
Australia. Also implicated are Estonia,
Israel, and Ukraine .) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in
false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok
poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele's,
one Pablo Miller , Sergei
Skripal's MI6 recruiter . (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the
dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian
government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow
flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.
A similar pattern
can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria : "We have irrefutable evidence
that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had
a hand in the staging" of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador
Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with
al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: "I am naming them because they have done
things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK
money." Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib
that the same ruse was being prepared
again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video
showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.
The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with
the US and the Netherlands,
accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World
Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and
a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone
didn't get the point,
British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared : "This is not the actions of a great
power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to
isolate them."
In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare
conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep
State collaborators in the United States. But it's not only aimed at Russia, it's an attack
on the United States by the government of a foreign country that's supposed to be one of
our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law,
and culture.
But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we've
allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not
conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception
that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion , seeks to embroil us
in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of
control.
This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom
and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.
James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to
the Senate GOP leadership.
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
---
Update - The Integrity Initiative
confirms the release of its documents. - End Update
---
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by
Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises
that:
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany
Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland
Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands
Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler,
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland,
Todd Leventhal
UK
Chris Donnelly,
Amalyah Hart, William Browder, John Ardis,
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham, Deborah Haynes,
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon, Mungo Melvin,
Rob Dover Julian Moore, Agnes Josa, David Aaronovitch, Stephen Dalziel, Raheem Shapi, Ben
Nimmo,
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede
Alan Riley [email protected] Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
I see that the cluster of UK journalists to receive propaganda from the Integrity Initiative
includes Guardian writer and former Le Monde chief editor (run out by her senior editors for
her "Putinesque" leadership style) Natalie Nougayrede. As if The Guardian needs any more
persuasion or encouragement to recede deeper into its labyrinthine network of rabbit-holes.
Jonathan Freedland must be jumping up and down in an infantile tantrum that Nugget-head got
such privileged access.
@ #2 pretzelattack Thanks for the Robert Mueller Guardian article link.
Am I the only one not to know that "As acting deputy attorney general, he [Robert Mueller]
was in charge of the investigation and indictment of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan
convicted of the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in
Scotland just before Christmas 1988.
Seems every new article I read on Robert Mueller, he was carrying out another CIA covert
plan.
Britain has been a US dog for years, most overtly in Blair's time over Iraq and Afghanistan,
but things haven't really changed. Britain's military has become more and more dependent on
the US. There is no longer an independent nuclear deterrent - the weapons are rented from the
US, and I'm certain that they couldn't be used without US approval (sure to be a backdoor
somewhere in the electronics which would enable the US to turn them off, if the US
disagreed). The F35s they've insisted on buying are probably in the same situation.
They're not slaves, or rather 'vassals' - the current word of sensitivity about the EU.
More active collaborators, which implies initiatives also stemming from Britain.
One should also recall Britain's function as US agent in the European Union. They were
opposed to many EU proposals, obviously to fit in with US desires. The most recent example is
the Galileo GPS system - they were opposed to it for years, but as Ivan Rogers told us
(former Brit ambassador to the EU), the opposition he was instructed to make failed.
It's all gone off a bit recently though. Trump is not interested in Britain in the way
Obama was. Brexit is a nativist movement, not what America wants. If Brexit goes through
finally, the interest of the US will be even less, as we can no longer intervene on the US's
behalf in Europe.
French agents of inluence according to leak: France
Francoise Thom Jusin Vaisse Thomas Bertin Caroline Gondaud Guillaume Schlumberger Raphael de
Lagarde Roland Galharague
Martin Briens Jean-Christophe Noel Laurent Rucker Alexandre Escorcia Nikola Guljevatej David
Behar Claire le Flecher Remy Bouallegue Paul Zajac Nicolas Roche Manuel Lafont Rapnouil
Laurent Rucker Patrick Hardouin Etienne de Durand
Janaina Herrera
I just knew if I scrolled down far enough the name Anne Applebaum would appear - Queen of the
Dual-Loyalists; but Wm. Browder!?
From her Wikipedia page: "She is a visiting Professor of Practice at the London School of
Economics, where she runs Arena, a project on propaganda and disinformation." I reckon she
"Practices" at the Post.
@7 "...things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the
soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia
fully, as they'd intended..."
Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base.
@18 russ... yes - that pretty well sums it up... as for putin falling into the neoliberal
order - at this point it does look that way.. i am curious how russia could move forward at
this moment in some alternative way? what would the alternative way look like?
@zanon... thanks, but the list given for usa/canada has only one person on it that appears
to be a canuck - glen howard.. and unless it is a different glen howard, the guy is some
curling wiz, but no mention of his anti-russian credentials... his e mail address is given as
jamestown.org which is connected to the jamestown foundation.. turns out, he is not a canuck
either - "Glen Howard President
Mr. Howard is fluent in Russian and proficient in Azerbaijani and Arabic, and is a
regional expert on the Caucasus and Central Asia. He was formerly an Analyst at the Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Strategic Assessment Center. His articles have
appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, and Jane's Defense
Weekly. Mr. Howard has served as a consultant to private sector and governmental agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council and major oil
companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East."
one of the people on the usa-can list - john nevado appears to be an equadorian...
bottom line - as a sensitive canuck, i think someone needs to change the list to say usa
and remove canada, as no canucks are on the list from the small research i did...
that is the sad thing about canada - it gets lumped in with the usa for good and bad on a
regular basis... maybe they could put crystia freelands name on this list... i think she
would qualify as a rabid anti-russia canuck...
reply to Plantman 13
re:
"Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have
been resolved and funding should now flow."
I don't think it was the Republican party that was the source of the deadlock.
I think it may have been Tillerson. He had close ties to Russia and in March 2018, he was
forced out of State and Pompeo came in.
"President Donald Trump nominated Pompeo as Secretary of State in March 2018, with Pompeo
succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal."
"The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month
..."
That's a decent salary. He probably can work from home too - like Bellingcat. A fake NGO
operating with fake "integrity" to identify "fake news". Everything is rather upside-down
these days. Good to have all those names attached. Where's C Summers on the list? - maybe he
never realized till now the monthly salaries available.
Central Europe
Anne Bader Eduard Abrahayman Mitar Kuyundzic Plamen Pantev Solomon Passy Jaroslav Hajecek
Jakub Janda Frantisek Vrabel Peter Kreko Jan Strzelecki Mario Nicolini Austria
Harold Elletson Susan Stewart
Baltic section according to the leak:
Tomas Tauginas Asta Skaisgiryte Saulius Guzevicius Eitvydas BAJARŪNAS Renatas Norkus
Vytautas Bakas Laurynas Kasciunas Dr Povilas Malakauskas Ainis Razma Mantas Martisius Linas
Kojala
Major Jane Witt Claire Lawrence James Rogers Andriy Tyushka Viktorija Urbonaviciute
reply to dh 31
"Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base."
True that!
I was blown away by their arrogance when I saw the US had bids out to remodel the existing
Russian buildings in the Crimean port to for a school, housing.
It clearly never occurred to them that they could/would lose, nor did they even bother to
think that Russia may keep an eye out for such mind blowing acts of stupidity such as these
bids?
Craig Oliphant is Senior Advisor, Peaceful Change Initiative (PCI), based in London, and
Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre. Until the end of 2010, he worked in
the diplomatic service and was Head of the Eastern Research Group in the Foreign Office,
dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe.
In the first half of the 1990s, Craig held posts in Brussels at NATO as an advisor on
Russia/Eastern Europe and was then at the OSCE in The Hague, as a regional advisor to the
OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Before that he was at the UK Ministry of
Defence (MOD), as a senior lecturer at the Conflict Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst; he also worked for several years in the 1980s at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
in Munich, Germany. Craig has published widely on Russia/FSU affairs. He is a member of
IISS; RUSI; a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts; and is a Vice Chairman of the British
Georgian Society.
Independent Conflict Research & Analysis (ICRA) was founded in May 2010 as a
not-for-profit organisation providing objective conflict analysis and training. It is led by
Christopher Langton OBE, who spent 32 years in the British Army. During this time he served
in Northern Ireland, Russia, the South Caucasus where he was Deputy Chief of UNOMIG and held
defence attaché appointments in Russia, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia.
Subsequently he worked at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for 9
years where he was the focus on Afghanistan. At IISS he held appointments as the Head of
Defence Analysis, Editor of "The Military Balance" and Research Fellow for Russia before
being appointed Senior Fellow for Conflict & Defence Diplomacy.
He has worked as an independent expert on the international investigation into the
Russia-Georgia conflict of August 2008 and on the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission investigating
the violence that occurred in Southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Christopher was Advisor to the
UK-China Conflict Prevention Working Group 2014-2015 under the aegis of Saferworld and
supported by DFID.
reply to:
This cureemt state of affairs cannot last longer. Right?
Posted by: PacoRepublicano | Nov 24, 2018 3:02:15 PM | 37
That may be why the globalists seem to be a bit off the rails.
I read in an article on the present French fuel tax protests/riots that a recent poll of
world millennials found that 50 percent would go along with a change of govt, it was 75
percent in France. Concurrent with these riots the French govt is trying to bring back
mandatory military service for those in the 3rd year of high school.
Indoctrination camps ala China is my guess.
i do think it is better to ignore the local shill... they say the same stupid shit on a
regular basis.. out of the kindness of b, it is unlikely to stop... quoting jamestown.org is
more of the same stupidity that i have come to expect from our resident shill..
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/
New I hope, from Murray's blog.
Note that Ben Bradshaw a Labour MP, famous forbeing the first MP who married a man, a fellow
BBC reporter, and a Blairite is one of the scum on the UK list. So is 'Prof' Alan Riley, a
lawyer with extensive interests in oil.
These people are constantly being wheeled out in the media as independent experts.
Talking of Murray's blog the latest piece laments the death of the Al Nusra spokesman who was
killed yesterday, by fellow salafists, as a democrat, secular etc etc.
Check the propaganda organization's twitter account: https://twitter.com/initintegrity
They have been in a retweeting spam mode since they got exposed. Quite hilarious.
"The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It
lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in
Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation"."
This following document explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a Dirty Trick
operation against Russia. It also mentions the use of aspects of Russian culture to be used
as a weapon against it (eg the church)
It lists tream members, funding for specificic tasks and this statement:
"Code of Conduct (Greg to commence with internet etiquette)
Anonymity of the team remains paramount. As our activity increases we will, no doubt, attract
unwanted attention."
That directly contradicts the official UK government statement to the Russians that the
Integrity Initiative is a public domain program.
the secret to all good propaganda: accuse the other side of doing what you're guilty of
so people believe that anonymous collective managed to gain access, via 'hacking'to the
FCO computer system? really? seriously? you think that the second, or third most
critical/secure UK govt. system can be either 'spearfished' or accessed by some other
means?
I will say this. I had always assumed Ed Lucas was ex -UK intel. He worked at the Moscow
embassy for the FCO and has stuck to the "save the baltics from the evil empire" line ever
since. There is a surprisingly tight network of folk (Yes Ann Applebaum) who have been
together hating the commies and now the non-commie Russians since the 90s. Some of them are
very prominent now (Yes Chrystia) despite having backgrounds which might suggest an
irrational agenda driven outlook (Nazis?). They meet up at conferences discussing the
Soviet/Russian menace and never mention that on raw spend, Nato outspends their hated Russia
by 10x or 20x.
Still, for some reason these people are considered angels of light and the rest of us need
to follow their barely literate lead (actually Ed Lucas is very literate, as is Peter
Pomerantsev). Anders Aslund a lot less so.
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Luke "The Plagiarist" Harding and the other Guardian hacks must be really pissed off that
they weren't considered to be worthy of even a sub-cluster.
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
No, not really. MI6 have demonstrated even greater levels of stupidity in the past. For
example, supporting the salafist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and then being surprised at
the blowback that was the Manchester Arena suicide bombing by one of its followers
Greek group according to leak: Despina afentouli ELIAMEP Thanos Dokos Ioannis Armakolas
George Tzogopoulos Dimitris Xenakis Katerina Oikonomakou Ioannis Goranitis Tasos Telloglou
Katerina Chryssanthopoulou Sissy Alonistiotou
i remain agnostic for now on the authenticity of the 'integrity initiative, but is has a
definite Gladio/NATO feel to it, so it's entirely plausible.
but as i was pasting together a new diary on the ever-increasing increased jeopardy to
julian assange by way the Wikileaks account on twitter, they had these tweets up:
'Ecuador's president has signed a decree terminating the ambassador to the United Kingdom,
Carlos Abad. All diplomats known to Assange have now been terminated to transferred away from
the embassy.'
@ Willie Wobblestick with the righteous poem....very nice, may it go viral with b's piece
@ wendy davis with the status of julian assange...thanks
I think these actions reek of desperation and lack of understanding of what exposure may
ensue from julian going down in some way. Julian may be holding old news but I expect that
there are depths of it that will be new to many.
The circus tent is starting to burn and the animals are freaking out, ready to
stampede.
Can we evolve away from the private finance motivated world soon, please and thank
you?
the first wikitweet was to the anon 'operation integrity initiative'; the second one says:
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications."
assange attorney hannah jonnason (@AssangeLegal) had been looking carefully at them,
parsing them in belief, but finally had re-tweeted wikileaks take. the 'portion' as i took it
by way of the subtweets was 'fabricated emails'. she's gret, plus brilliant, but on one
thread i'd posted she'd called marcy wheeler 'fbi informant MW', lol.
Golly gee-whiz! Why am I not surprised? Gotta have complementary sources of disinformation
operating in tandem with BigLie Media! Indeed, the synchronicity of so much fairly well
proves BigLie Media is part of this system. The Tower of Immorality being built primarily by
the Outlaw US Empire and its UK sidekick is like a Ponzi Scheme in that for it not to fall it
must have ever more lies continually added where eventually everything said by them will be
100% false.
It is getting tedious to have to type my personal information in every time I want to
comment. B has written that he is working on issues but I may forgo the web site link if this
continues....lazy as I am
@ wendy davis with the marcy wheeler as fbi informant claim....marcy seems well
intentioned but seems to have some way weird bias blinders in her thinking. I have stopped
following her because her signal to noise ratio got too bad. There are lots of folks like her
I am sorry to write. Well intentioned but drinking some koolaid that has them mixed up in
strategic ways.....almost like it was planned.....maybe more lists will come out now of other
organizations that are paying folk to build and/or maintain certain narratives like GWOT,
etc.
And yes, we can take the truth. It will set many free.
The chemical attack on Aleppo earlier today wasn't accompanied by immediate synchronized
media and NATO political leader accusations against the terrorists like we've seen associated
with the FFs. I've yet to see any, nor have any been reported on Twitter.
@ 68 pscychohistorian.. ditto your comments on marcy wheeler... all the folks at emptywheel
have gone off the rails, led by lead bozo - bmaz... i used to enjoy reading her, but the hate
russia memo they all swallowed is tedious slogging and i am not up for it..
James @70 i'm right there with ya. Watching how the Russian Derangement Syndrome has
afflicted otherwise sane and smart people has been disillusioning to say the least.
Blessings, b and comment support on this - it takes me back to the days when Five Eyes was
unravelling, and I can't but think that dastardly plot to surveil and snoop by means of
developing technology was going to be a worldwide instrument of torture and oneupmanship that
many thought would make that consortium top dog for all time.
So, they smashed the Guardian's computers, and they co-opted or blackmailed where they
could, but the genie was out. And out for good. It would make a good spy novel if it weren't
for the very real deaths and destruction that have happened in the wake of the revelations.
And that will happen before this sorry historical episode is over. I simply believe, however,
that thanks to nearly everyone contributing to this forum, such possibilities are
diminishing. Thank you,b and everyone.
I'm not well versed enough myself but I am baffled by this whole mess. All sides of this
are entities I don't trust at all: Intelligence agencies, Facebook, Trump and his crooked
playmates... seems there are no sides to trust or root for in this whole game of
espionage.
Ghost Ship @ 58: There is a Guardian writer in that UK journalist sub-cluster list and that
is Natalie Nougayrede. No surprise there ... over at Off-Guardian.org, commenters have their
own unprintable names for her. And you thought the bar at Integrity Initiative wasn't low
enough for Fraudian hacks.
It is important to note that Wikileaks questioned the authenticity of these documents. We
should be cautious before drawing any conclusions and wait for more information.
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications."
iv> Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick
of NATO and the UKUS governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her
in the first place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If
they are all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick of NATO and the UKUS
governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her in the first
place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If they are
all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
So Facebook is s co sponsor ? Social media not just about bringing people together but
manipulator and subversion .
If they were targeting Jews this would be called antisemitism , as iybisvtheytecyargetumg
russians ,
What role did they play In the novichok hoax ?
'Clusters established in each country' reads an awful lot like subversion and treachery
Should this be a matter for country police and national security ?
@Zanon 28
Même pour les Français, l'information est aujourd'hui en anglais... Ceci dit,
l'hystérie et l'"activité" anti-russe n'est pas très effective en
France... Trop d'Histoire et d'histoires partagées pour adhérer à cette
soupe servie pour les peuples anglo-saxons... Mais enfin, pas besoin d'avoir lu Hegel pour
comprendre que toute cette agitation-propagande sert in fine l'ennemi désigné,
la Russie; et précipite encore un peu plus, si c'est possible, la fin de l'empire.
Purported internal documents, from a UK government "counter-Russia" influence network
targeting mostly Europe and US, appear on site often alleged to be used by Russian state
hackers. cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash. There are some small but explainable inconsistencies (i.e. between budget plan and
approved budget?) and the whole stash is likely bigger than the published one. But all the
details I could check seem to fit.
"I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash."
Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now? (I assume Assange can't do so from his
hideout.) My memory's hazy, but I recall there being some kind of internal struggle there,
and that a pro-Wall Street faction opposed the release of the Bank of America files and
destroyed them.
Are they now trying to turn and appease their system enemies? Wouldn't be the first such
sell-out. Maybe they're jealous of the prestige, lucre, and system respectability of the
Snowden/Greenwald/Intercept industrial complex.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 25, 2018 4:01:51 AM |
link
This has everything...right down to FCO email addresses. For FCO read MI6. Either this is
colossal disinfo from Anonymous or a significant operation is truly blown. To resort to
something like this, on this scale, showa that they are worried about something. Perhaps RT
is getting wore viewing and hits in the UK and Europe than their outlets are. Once the
internet was invented this was bound to happen. In some societies this would be regarded as
espionage and subversion and these shills would be rounded up for a little chat. Great
journalism b, stay safe......at least we now know who the provocateurs for the next false
flag are....
Zero Hedge also striking similar skeptical notes. They retweet Assange from 2016 stating
anonymous to be an FBI cutout organisation. These anti-Russian organisations are real and
their aim is to fight Russian propaganda, they will say by publishing truth while Russia says
with lies. Of course they are funded. So is Russian propaganda. What the Russians are doing
is classic "Spy vs Spy" and Barflies of course lap up the kool-aid just as easily as every
kool-aid drinker we deride. The constant state of confirmation bias and psychological
projection on the internets isn't even newsworthy but it's interesting sociology. Wash.
Rinse. Repeat. Same as it ever was. Whatever gets us through the night. It's alright. But is
Assange only speaking truth when he confirms our biases? I have more respect for him.
Thanks b for posting Wikileak's skeptical take even as you wish to believe otherwise. That's
integrity. And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes.
This is so big of a news but the western media do not say a word about it!
This screams subversion, Gladio from the very top/deep state of western society.
Posted by: donkeytale | Nov 25, 2018 4:12:41 AM | 92
"And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes."
Who said that, donkeydumbass? Learn to read. I asked if the post-Assange Wikileaks might
be trying to do that. Of course I don't know what Assange himself might or might not do, any
more than you do.
The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from
President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious
Russian hacking group behind the attack.
In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said
the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically
anyone."
He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for
other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
Poupard is director general of the government cyber-defense agency known in France by its
acronym, ANSSI. Its experts were immediately dispatched when documents stolen from the Macron
campaign leaked online on May 5 in the closing hours of the presidential race.
Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who
did this alone. They could be in any country."
Some commentators claim that 'Anonymous' is an FBI operations and that lets them doubt
this issue.
Actually 'Anonymous' has been used as a cover by various shady agencies and individuals.
Everybody can publish whatever they want under the 'Anonymous' moniker. The moniker has no
credibility or meaning.
As always one has to distinguish between the source of information and the actual content
of the information.
Here the source is obviously shady. But the content, as far as I can tell, seems to be
real.
---
Also - don't feed the house troll. Craigsummers is allowed to comment here solely for our
amusement. There is no need to discuss whatever he posts.
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
In countries that may be hostile to this programme (Serbia, Spain, Italy for example), the
exposed cluster members should be immediately arrested as foreign spies and tried for
treason, and the exposed British Embassy contacts should be immediately expelled.
Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow.
Interesting isn't it, that from March 2018 the Trump Administration is no longer blocking
this programme! When was Trump's first meeting with President Putin, wasn't that in March?
Immediately afterwards of course he was lambasted. Was he turned at that point?
"Edward Snowden accused an Israeli cybersecurity firm of developing and selling surveillance
software to Saudi Arabia, enabling the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi":
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
Nah. like Skripal this is a home grown effort. After backing that loser Clinton with the
Steele file, the British Conservative government which likes to have its head even further up
Washington's arse than Tony Blair's is scared shitless that Trump will shit on them from a
great height for backing his rival. I suspect he will wait for Brexit to go through and then
take a dump on them when they turn up with their begging bowl in Washington looking for a
"free trade deal". They're hoping that with these attacks on Russia they will ingratiate
themselves with the Washington foreign policy establishment (Pat Lang's Borg) enough to
reduce the incredible volumes of shit Trump would dump on them. It looks like it's working at
the moment, but then Trump is known to be capricious so its anybody's guess what happens
later. Bear in mind that if the Conservative government make enough mistakes, it's that
socialist Corbyn who replaces it which is its Worst. Nightmare. Evah.
The bottom line as Al Gore said is there is no overriding authority. Sites like Above Top
Secrect are obviously run by people who want things kept top secrect. Snopes revealed itself
with its take on the White Helmets in Syria. Remember when the Greenpeace guy turned out to
be a shill for Nuclear Energy.
Thank you. Very good covering of the 'event', written in clear accessible language.
I am afraid that what was discovered is only a small part of the ocean of lies in which they
are trying to force us to swim.
I am amazed how these people can sleep well. Rotten and lying through and through...
In fact, nothing "surprising" or "unbelievable" was found. Specialists, experts, as well
as ordinary people, who have been interested in the topic, have long understood that it is
about a targeted propaganda, which operates according to its laws. This propaganda calls
truth a lie, and a lie truth, it calls white black and black it calls white. The work of this
propaganda is also clearly visible, for example, when, on the eve of some important event,
the "world community" suddenly (mean, "suddenly") finds out something "sensational", while
MSM all start writing the same thing with a certain bias (often anti-Russian). The Russian
Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed out the obvious coordination of the work of the
Western media when it comes to 'anti-Russian news'. All these info are in briefings and
statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which are publicly available on the
Ministry's website.
Especially clearly a targeted coordinated work of propaganda was visible during the events
in Syria, in particular, during the liberation of Aleppo. Remember all these "the last
hospitals". Even high-ranking representatives of the UN, many of whom are essentially Western
protégés, were also participating in this propaganda. For those who are
interested in how this worked during the liberation of Aleppo, I recommend reading this in full. A
lot of interesting details.
One thing is good - that such info become publicly known. Maybe more people will wake up
and think about what is going on.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
This particular story might originate within MI6. If MI6 knew that the Russians had
gathered compromising information on this operation, MI6 would put out a story favourable to
them to capture the narrative before the Russians could. Like all black propaganda, they
would have to include some of the real truth to make the fake "truth" appear reliable. It
also allows the supposedly devious twats at MI6 to demonstrate their steadfastness in
"fighting" the Russians.
BTW, it's entirely possible that the Skripal incident was by the Russians but only
designed to incapacitate Skripal pere as a warning to him or MI6 to behave themselves and not
do stupid things in future but the Conservative government rather stupidly decided to put out
a bullshit narrative about what happened. Furthermore, don't forget that Churchill, the hero
of the Conservative Party used chemical weapons against the Russians/Soviets. Most Brit's
probably never knew or have forgotten but I doubt the Russians have or ever will.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in
the stash.
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | 87
The best way the elite can undermine wikileaks is to infiltrate it and undermine it from
within, as they did to Amnesty International, and later Human Rights Watch, both of which are
completely controlled by US and UK intelligence services. I think it is a given that they
will have successfully infiltrated wikileaks - because I think it is impossible that
wikileaks could have avoided it completely, but lets hope that wikileaks keep up sufficient
defences to isolate the infiltration and limit its damage. With the current threats to
Assange that will be a big challenge!
If, as I suspect, this claim that the documents were fake was being pushed by an
infiltrator, then that infiltrator is raising flags to himself, so it is a high risk action
and emphasises the desperation the elite are in, that they are willing to burn a key
asset.
The docs are fakes? I don't think so, there's just too much detail and the names it exposes,
Aaronovich, Marcus (BBC), the financing. It's an awful lot of exposing in order to mislead us
don't you think? And if it was, it was one, gigantic failure!
The best way is to see how the MSM deal with it, if at all, so today for example, there's
been no mention on the BBC's RSS feed and there was none yesterday. I'd say that judging by
the nature and structure of the 'Institute of Statecraft', it's straight out of
Whitehall.
my apologies for my truncated response. what i'd meant to say is that we're talking past
one another. my fault entirely, as i never should have brought wheeler into the discussion,
and derailed my larger point. but i got in a hurry, and that was that.
but to those wondering why 'assange' would have noted that 'some portions have been
fabricated', asange notably has been incommunicado for the past seven months, and any
'visitors' (really just his legal team) are forced to surrender all their communication
device before entering the embassy. so who on the Wikileaks team had decided that is
unknowable, of course. but on one of the subtweets where b had noted jakub janda's pride in
being part of the organization (nice catch, by the way, b) one idiot linked to his home
website noting that assange is a Mossad operative.
when i'd been contemplating writing some of up, i will say that my favorite part was the
handbook, most especially this great psyop:
"What funding do they have/have access to/need? Caution! This is always a very sensitive
issue. NB 1 If asked about money for funding activities of a cluster, always be firmly vague
and helpfully uninformative and at all costs avoid making any funding commitments until we
have discussed it! NB 2 When talking about the Institute, be sure you can explain clearly
what we are and what we do. NB 3 if asked about our funding, be very clear: the Integrity
Initiative is funded by the Institute for Statecraft. The IfS gets its funding from multiple
sources to ensure its independence. These include: private individuals; charitable
foundations; international organisations (EU, NATO); UK Govt (FCO, MOD"
one commenter on the cyber guerilla doc dump page had noted: 'Propagandist Stephen Dalziel
is a given a regular platform by Monocle 24 in the UK and rebroadcast around the world.
Dalziel shills for the fraud "Bellingcat".'
And what is the difference between the MbS treatment of "unpleasant" Khashoggi and the US/UK
treatment of "unpleasant" Assange?
The absolute majority of the "progressives" and "liberals" in both the US and the UK are
sheepishly quiet when the most important journalist of our times, Julian Assange, has been
smeared and his life endangered by the kangaroo courts of the western corrupt judiciary.
mike k: "The US Mafia Government kangaroo court gathers it's phony "legal" forces,
salivating in anticipation of Assange as a choice morsel for it's evil appetite. Their
"logic" goes like this, "if we say you are guilty, then you are guilty".
And where is the zionized MSM? -- With the kangaroo courts, of course, working in a accord
with the mega war profiteers and other big-time criminals.
In France, last Pres. election, the favored candidate from the right (Républicains)
was Alain Juppé. As the F establishment likes to mimic the US in all ways, they
instored 'primaires' - primaries, to 'elect' 'the most popular candidate' from the two main
parties. As the French don't glom the depth of corruption of the US system and how to do
that, and just love - for all kinds of reasons - such gadgets, the vote at the
Républicain table (even the name is a tribute) turned out surprise to be for Francois
Fillon - who was (is) Catholic, pro-Russia, while your standard right-wing F-flavored stooge.
He was brought down speedily in a corruption scandal, for hiring his wife and children
amongst others to do no work or symbolic stuff. One third of F Parliament members do this
(off the cuff nos., but attested to ..), it is completely accepted. An allowed 'perk' - a way
to spend the budgets > 'favored' 'loyal' ppl.
The effiency and speed of this attack surprised me. Fillon - no fool - 'withdrew' so to
speak and made no waves beyond the acceptable i.e. stalwart opposition / defense at first,
then went to work for a Financial Co. All the hype about suing the wife, about getting money
back, whatever, died pronto.
I have no idea how this was organised. (The left was conveniently split.. between the
entrenched "Socialists" and "Mélenchon," France Insoumise ) and so the end-run
was between the vilified National Front (renamed now) Marine Le Pen, party which survives
only as they play their puppet role to guarantee they collect low-class opposition to then
always lose facing either the Socialists or the Républicains.
Syria Urges U.N. to Condemn Rebels After Apparent Chemical Attack
Syria accused rebel forces of launching an attack in Aleppo that sent scores of choking
victims to hospitals. Medical officials suspected chlorine had been used.
Characteristically, the attack is "apparent", but almost strangely, NYT reported Reuters
news providing an inconvenient story rather fast.
If some at least of the documents are fabrications, the plan of the Western intelligence
agencies may be to expose some false details in the documents to discredit the whole story.
So, what several posters here are now stating or at least implying is the @wikileaks account
is basically the same as "Anonymous"? That is, it is merely a cover used by shadowy
individuals and therefore no longer possesses any credibility unless it posts something with
which we can all agree?
And the thoughts it expressed do not necessarily bear any relationship to Julian
Assange?
Unless, of course, we agree with those thoughts?
Blooming Barricade , Nov 25, 2018 10:50:38 AM |
link
The Integrity Initiative is now trying to smear and attack Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn's
communications director and a key voice on the anti-war, anti-capitalist left, tweeting a
Times article that appears to have been contributed to by them. They also retweeted Michael
Weiss on Milne, who they appear to want to remove from a future Corbyn government in the vein
of that Spanish minister This should be a HUGE scandal given that this is funded by the UK
government and thus the Tory administration and is thus GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA against the
leader of the opposition, paid for by the taxpayer and in line with big business/military
Euro-Atlanticist lobby. Thanks to the digital urban guerrilla site for exposing this assault
on socialism and the public. https://twitter.com/InitIntegrity/status/1066691553350086656
Best MoA blockbuster yet!!! Somewhere down there Joseph Goebbels is gazing upward at all this
exposed chicanery, eyes shining with delight, and also green with envy.
Goebbels was a rank amateur and grossly overrated - he could do white propaganda when
things were going well for the Nazis which wasn't difficult, otherwise he was useless. When
things started to go bad for the Nazis, the British, particularly Sefton Delmer, started
running rings around him. The Americans really never understood black propaganda but why
should they, and the British are still trying to fight World War 11 with their black
propaganda and are still losing.
These kind of propaganda campaigns end up as own goals for the establishment. Peons and serfs
don't need to know what is going on, but the Dear Leaders' functionaries do need accurate
info in order to make correct decisions that further establishment goals. With all the smoke
and chaos of conflicting stories, can bureaucrats keep their lies straight? I think not.
As I understand it, glowing but inaccurate fabricated reports submitted to the former
German Democratic Republic (East Germany) Dear Leaders left them unable to comprehend just
how unhappy the GDR citizens actually were, so the collapse came as a surprise. [1] We can
see this happening in Afghanistan today. The Pentagon insists they are "winning" while the
Taliban-controlled territory continues to increase. When Uncle Sam is finally driven out, it
will come as a complete surprise to the DC Dunces who believe their own phony reports.
[1] Fulbrook, Mary; Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR 1949-1989; Oxford University
Books; 1995
Just imagine the response and publicity if this was a Russian government funded organization,
having a network of agents of influence groups of people in western europe...
reply to Russ 89
"Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now?"
Good question. Do you recall when Assange's attorney was killed when pushed in front of a
train at the time the Wikileaks founder Gavin Macfadyen died?
The staff roster at Wikileaks then went through an almost total turnover and there were
reports that someone was escorted from the building with a bag over their head and there were
reports that Assange's deadman switch was activated but stopped. All this occurred back in
2016.
The reason no one who knows Assange is being allowed physical contact may be because someone
else is in his place.I have a sad feeling that he is in a Langley basement.
on sept. 26, 2018 julian assange had named Kristinn Hrafnsson of iceland as the new
editor-in-chief of wikileaks. at that time julian had been cut off from communicating for six
months.
an hour ago wikileaks had tweeted:
@wikileaks: WikiLeaks Retweeted Integrity Initiative 'UK government backed anti-Russian
influence network account for "Integrity Initiative" confirms release of documents.'
@InitIntegrity 'Here is our statement on the recent publication by Russian media of hacked
Integrity Initiative documents.'
they offered some caveats, among them:
"We have not yet had the chance to analyse all of the documents, so cannot say with
confidence whether they are all genuine or whether they include doctored or false material.
Although it is clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or
Institute systems, much of it is dated and was never used. In particular, many of the names
published were on an internal list of experts in this field who had been considered as
potential invitees to future cooperation. In the event, many were never contacted by the
Integrity Initiative and did not contribute to it. Nor were these documents therefore
included in any funding proposals. Not only did these individuals have nothing to do with the
programme – they may not even have heard of us. We are of course trying to contact all
named individuals for whom we have contact details to ensure that they are aware of what has
happened."
now my guess, fwiw, is that the WL knows chapter and verse how the CIA vault 7 revelations
can be used to create false email addresses, etc., so perhaps they'd spotted some.
but assange's attorney jennifer robinson did get to see him on nov. 16.
Thus is an extraordinary article. It describes distilled hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.
and U.K. who have conniptions over Russian "meddling," that has proved to be thin gruel
indeed, but who organize a vast, expensive enterprise of their own to implement
disinformation and smear campaigns to influence the internal affairs of other countries and
friendly ones at that. Russia purchases a modest message on Twitter (?) and that is an attack
on "our democracy."The attack on the now oddly-sequestered Skripals is an epic East Asian
fire drill with Theresa May written all over it and it sure as hell has nothing "made in
Moscow" about it.
Anne Appelebaum and the other "journalists" have some 'splainin' to do about what
independent, unbiased journalists are doing as players in government propaganda
organizations.
Look y'all, @craigsummers is a paid troll. So all your responses are earning him or her
income. Trolling is an art form. b, you could regularly remined new readers to ignore mwn.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:14:22 AM |
link
I am Russian, live in Russia.
This is the most interesting journalistic investigation I've read in the last six months.
Thanks.
Most of all I am surprised, the whole world is in economic crisis, people in developed
countries are becoming poorer. Britain has an external debt of 7.5 trillion-314% of GDP. But
all useless garbage the money is. And most importantly, Why?
We all (USA, Russia, Britain, EU) are just village losers who fight in a roadside ditch,
proving that "I am good, they are bad".
And at this time past us at full speed is a huge Chinese train.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:42:03 AM |
link
And the destruction of the MH-17 Boeing by the Russians is also disinformation.
Do you know what the official version of the investigation is?
"Once upon a time. One air defense "Buk" secretly arrived from Russia, shot once, one rocket,
in one civil plane, and left back to Russia" (facepalm). Seriously, I'm not kidding, this
nonsense is the official version.
The involvement of several dozen Ukrainian air defense " Buk " located in the area of the
disaster, not even considered.
No one knows what they were doing.
All photos of "wandering, mad Russian "Buk" were false.
But sanctions imposed by the EU after the disaster, no one is going to cancel. And to
assume aloud "that" new authorities" of Ukraine at which hands on an elbow in blood " can be
guilty of accident, it is impossible, taboo.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 27, 2018 5:45:32 AM |
link
Gateside Mills in rural Fife is the official headquarters of the controversial
Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a "think tank" set up to combat Russian
disinformation.
For the tiny number of people aware of its existence, Gateside Mills is a derelict building
in rural Fife without any obvious signs of life.
Anyone curious enough to carry out further investigation might find a seemingly small
Scottish charity is registered there.
But the Sunday Mail can reveal the crumbling Victorian mill is actually the official
headquarters of the controversial Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a shadowy "think
tank" whose Integrity Initiative programme has been set up to combat Russian
propaganda.
Leaked documents prove the organisation received hundreds of thousands of pounds of
funding from the British Government via the Foreign Office.
...
The manager of the Integrity Initiative appears to be Christopher Donnelly.
A website biography states he is a graduate of Manchester University and reserve officer
in the British Army Intelligence Corps who previously headed the British Army's Soviet
Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst.
Between 1989 and 2003, he was a special adviser to Nato Secretaries General and was
involved in dealing with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and reform of newly
emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
He left NATO in 2003 to set up and run the UK Defence Academy's Advanced Research and
Assessment Group. In 2010, he became a director of IFS.
Russia are the problem along with China, because they both oppose their NWO agenda! This
agenda has been getting pushed from UK for decades now. It first started back in 1800's, but
now is world wide. The Corporate & Bankers want complete control of all economies &
jobs.
This way they control everything, where and who manufactures what and how much, all
controlled by Corporations. Governments become non existent, as do the Electorate. This would
have been obvious IF all TPP-TTIP-CETA Treaties had been signed. We'd have had one huge
Single Market that excluded BRICS, who'd have been forced in by war!
To their end, 'deep state; then attacked Rouseff in Brazil, had her 'impeached' and placed
their puppet Temer in charge, as an 'anchor' to BRICS, as well as creating problems in ME,
where China's One Belt One Road [New Silk Road] crosses continents.
The more people become aware of their intentions, the harder it becomes for them to win, as
they are now losing ground all round the world. The last two, Israel & UK are about to
fall. Netinyahoo has been charged with Corruption and May in UK, is on the verge of being
brought down, after being the first PM to be charged and found guilty of Contempt for
Parliament! Next to fall, the corrupt EU.
"... This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion. ..."
"... Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war! ..."
"... These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush. ..."
We are in a showdown moment. At this week's Group of 20 Summit -- only three days away, in
Buenos Aires, there is the potential for Great Power diplomacy in the direction of a New
Paradigm of foreign relations, as an outcome of the sideline meetings of heads of state and
government of the United States, China, Russia, India and others.
The growing momentum for New Paradigm economic development is seen in high-level events this
month in six Western European nations: in Germany, the "Hamburg Summit: China Meets Europe"
(Nov. 26-27); in France, the Lyon "Franco-Chinese Forum" (Nov. 26-28); in Spain, President Xi
Jinping's state visit (Nov. 27-29); in Portugal, Xi's visit (Dec. 4-5); in Italy, a new
Xinhua-associated Italian financial media service will be set up (Nov. 6 agreement); in Norway,
the first Polar Route icebreaker delivery of Yamal LNG, for transshipment from the northern
port of Honnigsvag.
This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires
gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire
crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion.
Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in
Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25,
Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the
"Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an
offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against
Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding
world war!
These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the
spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and
Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga
Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward
in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The
Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush.
The Nov. 25 Ukrainian naval breach of Russian territorial waters was long pre-planned. As
the Italian military journal Difesa Online wrote on Nov. 25, "it was evident to all
those who follow local events that for some days already, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine
was trying to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow in the Crimean waters." Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, said the same yesterday, adding a warning. "We
are talking about a pre-planned, deliberate, and now realized large-scale provocation.... I
think everybody should be careful next time. I think there will be a next time, considering
what is happening now."
President Donald Trump's first response to the Ukraine incident, Nov. 26, was to express
concern, and hopes for settlement. "We do not like what's happening, either way; ... hopefully,
it will get straightened out." President Vladimir Putin will issue his statement on this
incident in a few days.
From London, however, comes a raving "script" of what Trump and the West must do against
Russia. It is the featured item on the website of the Integrity Initiative, which is a British
intelligence black war propaganda operation. Its funding is from the U.K. Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. Its Nov. 26 posting is titled, "West Is Once Again Failing Test Set by
Russian Aggression," by Edward Lucas, formerly of The Economist , and a longtime
Russia-hater, who wrote such books as Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the
West (2012) and The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West (2nd
ed., 2014). Lucas calls for "kinetic, symbolic, and financial measures" against Russia. This is
to include, the West sending military aid to Ukraine, running a NATO flotilla to the Ukrainian
port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, putting sanctions on Russian officials and businessmen
present in the West, and cutting Russia off from Western finance. Lucas says that the West
didn't act against Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, but they must act now against
Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Lucas is part of the British "cluster" of Integrity Initiative's operatives, which also
includes former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood of Orbis Business Intelligence,
the firm of "former" MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who fabricated the infamous anti-Trump
dossier. These figures are at the heart of the coup operations against Trump, and before that,
the Obama Administration election subversion.
Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday,
now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the "
modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that
it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against
President Trump."
"... Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.) ..."
Howard Zinn said, in a speech given shortly after the 2008 Presidential election, "If you don't know history, it's like you were
born yesterday. The government can tell you anything." (Speech was played on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org about Jan. 4, 2009
and is archived, free on the website.)
Being older (18 on my last Leap Year birthday - 72), I recall the NYTimes and CIA have had relationship with, and was caught
having "planted CIA workers" as NYTimes writers. Within my adult lifetime, in fact.
This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that [...] it is an "intelligence matter".
In a sense the CIA is always going to be right on this one - "Central Intelligence Agency" - but only as a matter of nomenclature,
rather than of any other dictionary definition of the word "intelligence".
Actually the collusion between the CIA and big business is far more damaging. The first US company I worked for in Brussels (it
was my first job) was constantly being targeted by the US media for having connections to corrupt South American and Third World
regimes. On what seemed like an almost monthly basis our personnel department would send round memos saying that we were strictly
forbidden to talk to journalists about the latest exposé.
It was great fun - even the telex operators knew who the spies were.
The line "'The optics aren't what they look like,' is truly an instant classic. It reminds me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra
quotes (which, unlike many attributed to him, is real, I think). Yogi once said about a restaurant in New York "Nobody goes there
anymore. It's too crowded." Perhaps Yogi should become an editor for the Times.
British readers will no doubt be shocked -- shocked! -- to learn of cozy relations between a major news organization and a national
intelligence agency.
"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet
said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.'
"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know,
it's much ado about nothing.'"
How can you have a Party if you don't have Party elites?
And how can a self-respecting member of the Party claim their individual status within the Party without secret knowledge designed
to identify one another as members of the Party elite?
[Proles are] natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals ... Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance
not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals the Party was trying to achieve. ... The
ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering -- a world of of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines
and terrifying weapons -- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts
and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting -- 300 million people all with the same
face. The reality was decaying, dingy cities, where underfed people shuffled to and fro in leaky shoes... [
1984 ,pp 73-74]
It makes no difference if an imagined socialist England, a collapsing Roman city-state empire, an actual Soviet Union, or a
modern American oligarchy.
Party members thrive while those wretched proles flail in confused and hungry desperation for something authentic (like a George
Bush) or even simply reassuring (like a Barack Obama.)
Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than
as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes
and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.)
Manzetti has "no bad intent" because he is loyal to the Party.
Like all loyal (and very well compensated) Party members, he would never do anything as subversive as reveal Party secrets.
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... A version of this article first appeared in Boston Review ..."
"... Main illustration by Eleanor Shakespeare ..."
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it denotes a preference for markets over
government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe
a wide range of phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the Clinton Democrats and the UK's
New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity.
Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality,
led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash .
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and disseminators – the neoliberals themselves?
Oddly, you have to go back a long time to find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor
of the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the neoliberalism it describes bears little
resemblance to today's target of derision. The politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher
and Reagan, but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned with unions and big government and
dropped their prejudices against markets and the military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of
which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial
crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle
. The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade
agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant
or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left
politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds
of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our
contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of
homo economicus
, the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the mark. There is nothing wrong with
markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant
economic achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have
and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify
– and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it would help us to develop the institutional
imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic science. To see those tenets without
the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited
and knows nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country is in trouble," they tell
him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us
what we should do to make our economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to make any recommendations. He would need
to study the history of the economy, to analyse the statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism
and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for all that," they tell him. "But isn't
economics a science, and aren't you one of its most distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy,
surely there are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long criticised for peddling their favourite
policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question. Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical determinant of the economy's performance,
he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives
faced by entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic growth. Growth needs a system
of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the
economy must be open to ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in nominal money demand at reasonable inflation.
They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry
out prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds. Economic principles also carry over
to equity and social policy. Economics has little to
say about how much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as broad as possible, and
that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal agenda. A critic in the audience
will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives, property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal
principles that the economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one in which investment
decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising
variety of institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so, and our mistake would consist of associating
each abstract term – incentives, property rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map on to a unique set of
policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An optimal system would distribute property
rights to those who would make the best use of an asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns.
Property rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they protect them from competition.
Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style
regime of private property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal economic success is largely due to its
orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms
produced market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better adapted to the local context.
Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing
legal structures, the country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for entrepreneurs in
practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned
and controlled by local governments. Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did not want to kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order economic principles in unfamiliar institutional
arrangements. For instance, it shielded its large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where
foreign firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such departures from orthodox blueprints,
describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal – as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call
this neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps it will have to converge on western-style
institutions to sustain its economic progress. But this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements
that still prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries varies, from a third of the economy
in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland
is just 16%. In the US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French
labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first. Stock markets have grown to a total value
of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial organisation is inherently superior to the others
is belied by the varying economic fortunes that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly
Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism.
We might even go a step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what might be possible,
and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the principles he has enunciated need to
be filled in with institutional detail before they become operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but
how? It would perhaps be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate
the utility of those principles once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven
to ruin courtesy of political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical significance of sound money, fiscal
sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much of the work of economists consists
of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence. Economists tend to think of what they
do as progressively refining their understanding of the world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested
and revised over time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely manmade, highly malleable and operates
according to different rules across time and space. Economics
advances not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our understanding of the diversity
of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really competitive and employers have no
control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic
growth? Yes, if it increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes place; but not otherwise.
Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise.
Does monopoly harm innovation? Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas that have produced growing economic inequality
and precipitated our current populist backlash' Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model dating back to Adam Smith has been
modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric
information, irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful as ever. Understanding
how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are
highly stylised representations
of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction
also implies that we need a different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a map of
bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is constructed, we will need a subway map – but
we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most suited to the task at hand. When
confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour
the
laissez-faire
approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard
Keynes once defined economics as the "science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for his view on whether free trade is
a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the
professor's advanced graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This time the professor
is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?" The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis
that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied,
and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing."
If he is in an expansive mood, the professor might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not
clear either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On the record, he exudes self-confidence,
not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned,
and there is a single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that he imparts to his
advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public. Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one important motive is the zeal to display
the profession's crown jewels – market efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to shield
them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the other side of the issue – financiers
and multinational corporations whose motives are no purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction, in favour of more trade, more finance
and less government. That is why economists have developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics
is very far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run wild are in fact not being
true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of neoliberal practices? We must begin by
understanding the positive potential of global markets. Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an
important role in virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful reminder of this historical
truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian
countries such as
Mauritius . All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when globalisation comes into question. What they
will fail to say is that almost all of these countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and
Taiwan, for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and the latter through tax incentives.
All of them eventually removed most of their import restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up
to imports. Chile's neoliberal
experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin America. While the details differ across countries,
in all cases governments played an active role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed.
Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a
particularly sad example. Following a series of macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and signed the North American Free Trade
Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment.
But where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth –
the experiment failed
. Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the
undemanding standards of Latin America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet another manifestation of the need for
economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each
country. No single blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably over time as the label has acquired
harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation, financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects
all versions of neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis
on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because growth is essential to all our social and political
ends – community, democracy, prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way (such
as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar neoliberal manifesto were penned today,
it would no doubt make the same point.
ss="rich-link"> Globalisation: the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world Read more
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other important values such as equality, social
inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts
they matter the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic policies; politics must play
a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more likely to be attained when our economy
is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic
performance, to which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the economics right. It must
be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad economics.
A version of this article first appeared in
Boston Review
Recently MI6 were implicated in Steel report, Skripals poisonings, Browder machinations, and creation of the Integrity
Initiative. Nice "non-interference" mode...
Notable quotes:
"... The UK's top spy spent some of his time blaming Russia for trying to, as he put it, "subvert the UK way of life" by supposedly poisoning the Skripals and through other mischievous but ultimately never verified actions, though moving beyond the infowar aspect of his speech and into its actual professional substance, he nevertheless touched on some interesting themes ..."
"... In other words, it's all about applying what he calls the "Fusion Doctrine" for building the right domestic and international teams across skillsets in order to best leverage new technologies for accomplishing his agency's eternal mission, which is "to understand the motivations, intentions and aspirations of people in other countries." ..."
"... "being able to take steps to change [targets'] behavior", this has actually been part and parcel of the intelligence profession since time immemorial, albeit nowadays facilitated by social media and other technological platforms that allow shadowy actors such as the UK's own "77th Brigade" to carry out psychological, influence, and informational operations. ..."
"... Considering Russia to be a country that "regards [itself] as being in a state of perpetual confrontation with [the West]", Younger believes that unacceptably high costs must be imposed upon it every time it's accused of some wrongdoing, forgetting that the exact same principle could more applicably be applied against the West by Russia for the same reasons. ..."
"... If read from a cynical standpoint by anyone who's aware of the true nature of contemporary geopolitics, Younger's speech is actually quite informative because it inadvertently reveals what the West itself is doing to Russia by means of projecting its own actions onto its opponent . ..."
"... That in and of itself is actually the very essence of Hybrid War , which is commonly understood to largely include blatantly deceptive techniques such as the one that the UK's top spy is unabashedly attempting to pull off. ..."
"... Accusing one's adversaries of the exact same thing that you yourself are doing is a classic method of deflecting attention from one's own actions by pretending that you're being victimized by the selfsame, which therefore "justifies" escalating tensions by portraying all hostile acts as "proactive defensive responses to aggression". ..."
"... Basically, the British spymaster just sloppily revealed his hand to Russia while attempting to implicate it for allegedly conducting "fourth generation espionage" against the UK. ..."
The head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Alex Younger briefed the public
about the challenges of so-called " fourth
generation espionage ".
The UK's top spy spent some of his time blaming Russia for trying to, as he put it, "subvert
the UK way of life" by supposedly poisoning the Skripals and through other mischievous but
ultimately never verified actions, though moving beyond the infowar aspect of his speech and
into its actual professional substance, he nevertheless touched on some interesting themes.
According to him, "fourth generation espionage" involves "deepening our partnerships to counter
hybrid threats, mastering covert action in the data age, attaching a cost to malign activity by
adversaries and innovating to ensure that technology works to our advantage."
In other words, it's all about applying what he calls the "Fusion Doctrine" for building the
right domestic and international teams across skillsets in order to best leverage new
technologies for accomplishing his agency's eternal mission, which is "to understand the
motivations, intentions and aspirations of people in other countries."
While he remarked that the so-called "hybrid threats" associated with "fourth generation
espionage" necessitate "being able to take steps to change [targets'] behavior", this has
actually been part and parcel of the intelligence profession since time immemorial, albeit
nowadays facilitated by social media and other technological platforms that allow shadowy
actors such as the UK's own "77th Brigade" to
carry out psychological, influence, and informational operations.
Younger warned that "bulk data combined with modern analytics" could be "a serious
challenge" if used against his country , obviously alluding to Cambridge
Analytica's purported weaponization of these cutting-edge technological processes to
supposedly "hack" elections, though neglecting to draw any attention to the fact that his
intelligence agency and its allies could conceivably do the same in advance of their own
interests, something that everyone who uses Western-based social media platforms is theoretically
at risk of having happen to them.
What Younger is most concerned about, however, are what he describes as the "eroded
boundaries" that characterize so-called "hybrid threats" lying between war and peace, which he
fears could undermine NATO's Article 5 obligation for all of the military alliance's members to
support one another during times of conflict. Considering Russia to be a country that "regards
[itself] as being in a state of perpetual confrontation with [the West]", Younger believes that
unacceptably high costs must be imposed upon it every time it's accused of some wrongdoing,
forgetting that the exact same principle could more applicably be applied against the West by
Russia for the same reasons.
He claims that it's the UK that will never respond in kind by
destabilizing Russia like Moscow's accused of doing to the UK, but in reality, it's President
Putin's so-called "judo moves" which prove that it's Russia who has mastered asymmetrical
responses instead. If read from a cynical standpoint by anyone who's aware of the true nature
of contemporary geopolitics, Younger's speech is actually quite informative because it
inadvertently reveals what the West itself is doing to Russia by means of projecting its own
actions onto its opponent .
That in and of itself is actually the very essence of HybridWar ,
which is commonly understood to largely include blatantly deceptive techniques such as the one
that the UK's top spy is unabashedly attempting to pull off.
Accusing one's adversaries of the
exact same thing that you yourself are doing is a classic method of deflecting attention from
one's own actions by pretending that you're being victimized by the selfsame, which therefore
"justifies" escalating tensions by portraying all hostile acts as "proactive defensive
responses to aggression".
Basically, the British spymaster just sloppily revealed his hand to
Russia while attempting to implicate it for allegedly conducting "fourth generation espionage"
against the UK.
"... Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to. ..."
"... Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence ..."
Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish]
son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were
tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.
One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only
needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out
with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff
arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was
anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of
involvement in his murder.
Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of
Netanyahu who, like Jared, hasbefriended MbS .
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the
election."
-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse
Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any
evidence .
These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager
whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the
ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.
Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal
murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.
Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."
By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled
city of the US?
@annamaria A 1st
grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.
@Anon " crappy
bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "
Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.
If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention
from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists
Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi
& Jared), you are for a disappointment.
One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of
Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by
Russian government.
The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer
because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz
Israel.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder
of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the availableevidence . Thanks
to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of
no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of
Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists
friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no
importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
"... Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote. ..."
Proportional representation is definitely the way to go. I am sick to death of the
born-to-rule mentality of the major parties, and how they change the rules to benefit
themselves and to exclude others.
Minority government? There is no such thing - there is only 'government', and it is
supposed to involve all members of parliament in the decision-making process. 'Majority'
governments are an anathema to good governance. Every time I hear the likes of Tony Abbott
claim they have a mandate to implement ALL their policies, even though they only receive
around 35% of the primary vote, I want to throw something at the TV.
Bugger them! Make them work for a living - and make them consider ALL views, not just the
ones from their own party.
Preferences are an extremely good feature of our voting system
Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the
number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different
candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote.
Preferential voting also makes it more possible for the major party duopoly being
overturned, allowing people to vote for a good independent without taking the risk of helping
a despised major party candidate from winning by default.
"The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest groups
far more than it represents the citizenry." You are spot on.
What a logical and stirring argument you put forward Richard Denniss, and a large majority of
the electorate would have to agree.
However there is also a large number of people in the electorate that cannot appear to rise
from their nightly slumber without wearing their Blue, Red, Green or Orange tinted glasses
before facing the new day.
And because of this, and preferential voting, sneaking in the background is a plethora of the
wild mindless sub creatures called politicians who demand their rights to sit in the big
white building on Canberra;s Capital Hill, just waiting to spoil not only the electorate's
party but also known to prostitute the country's governance to their own advantage.
Richard, we desperately need a follow up stirring article on how to overcome this black
menace to our country, for the sake of our country.
If you think the public has an appetite for more bureaucrats, more rules and regulations to
micromanage people's lives and even more political wheeling and dealing in Canberra, you
should get out more.
That the coalition government is on the slide is of no long term consequence. We'll get a
Labor government next year and in a few years another coalition government and so on.
What is of long term significance is the loss of public trust in pretty much all of the
institutions - including goverment and the various government agencies that would be more
powerful under your scenario.
The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest
groups far more than it represents the citizenry. Perhaps the solution lies in more direct
democracy.
The same sex marriage plebiscite demonstrated that we commoners can deliberate on a
sensitive issue, and in doing so behave far better than our elected representatives in
Parliament. And can make a sensible and progressive decision that our elected representatives
could not - both coalition and Labor MPs had opposed same sex marriage when it was raised in
th e Parliament.
The internet provides a platform for direct decision making by the citizenry. Perhaps we
should try that instead of what you are suggesting.
It's been clear for years that proportional representation has progressively meant death to
effective government, and that it forces major parties policy development further to the
political fringes to appeal to the fruit loops on the periphery of their respective
demographics. Time for a return to simple preferential voting (a-la-house of Reps) in the
senate, and an overhaul of what's considered a valid ballot - if you want to only rank 1, 2,
3 or all candidates it should be entirely your choice.
Hung parliaments, with diametrically opposed clumps of "independents" jointly holding the
balance of power can only ever deliver legislative stasis and constant political turmoil (as
we have experienced since 2010 and Europe and the US have suffered for the last decade).
Oh for the good old days when one or the other of the major parties held a working
majority in both houses, and policy was targeted at the 'sensible centre" of the Australian
electorate. At worst, they only had to deal with a couple of sensible Democrats, and the odd
lunatic fringe-ist like Harradine.
"... I find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long. ..."
Having spent many years in a New Zealand under a First Past the Post system
and then Mixed Member Proportional, I am an enthusiastic supporter of proportional systems.
I
find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really
don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really
can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long.
Hettie7-> melbournesam 31 Oct 2018 00:45
Proportional representation makes the most sense. Each party gets the same percentage of seats in the parliament as it
received votes in the election. That really is fair.
Nationalisation of essential services is required to put this country back on an even keel.
It was a stupid idea by governments (of all persuasions) to sell off monopoly essential
service assets. The neoliberal experiment has failed.
Beware: Just build a HUGE worker owned, democratically run (by workers) sector to compete
against privately owned concerns. If workers are (democratically) involved in running and
managing their own workplaces that will give plenty of competition for private concerns.
Workers will be involved in the 'politics' and economics of their local area as part of work.
They'll have more control over the technologies they want to use, how much profit they want
to make or not, wages, investment, working conditions and all aspects of their concern.
Workers would 'participate' more and be more involved in thinking about larger concerns. This
would make a nation/region more democratic on the 'ground'. Not just reliant on
'representative' democracy/voting. You'd still need over-arching government(s) but people
would have more direct control over their livelihoods and work conditions. Such a BIG sector
would give (I'm talking about Health, Education, manufacturing etc - not 'bread shop',
basket-weaving coops/social enterprises) private enterprise some REAL competition on prices
and services. It would deliver democracy to masses of people, some control over wealth
generation/economy and on a large enough scale CHANGE society in terms of social justice and
politics.
You don't need to go to State control or Private control of 'the economy'. Just the right
kinds of structures.
Neoliberalism is like a cancer on a health democracy. If we'd treated it in its early
magnifications (when the Librerals and far right old version of Labor), first started selling
off public assets (that are then charged back to citizens to use at increasing price rates
etc), we would have been fine.
But now the cancer is deep in democracy's lymph glads ( in many of our public services)
and so needs radical prolonged treatment and some surgery to assure the country's thriving
democracy survives.
First surgically remove the source: cease (vote out always) all right wing conservative
nutters from ever gaining power, or media mogul influence of government. Most but not all
hide in the Coalition.
Then, begin the reconstruction surgery to re-assert public assets and services. This is a
temporary but life saving cost.
Then, monitor and manage, (educate) the citizens about this scourge on democracy.
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size
and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Neoliberalism is far from dead Richard - neoliberalism is deeply entrenched in mainstream
thinking its corporate enriching magic works insidiously - mostly subliminally under cover of
'sensible' free market self clearing 'orthodox' economics.
You and many others from 'progressive' TAI almost daily, unwittingly play a role in
reinforcing and entrenching neoliberal ideology in the community by framing macroeconomic
analysis/commentary in neoliberal terms.
Your oft repeated call for 'budget balance' over the business cycle is such an example. Only
fiscal deficits can build a prosperous productive nation in the absence of consistent
external surpluses - no government can ever build and expand a nation without permanently
injecting more funds into the non government sector than (through taxation etc) it
withdraws.
Both our major parties of government espouse neoliberal economic orthodoxy as if there is
no alternative - and no one calls them out - not even the quasi progressive TAI.
DSGE based 'orthodox' economics provides the lifeblood to neoliberalism - the myth of tax
collections funding expenditure provides plausible cover to constrain spending on
citizen/social services - but when it comes to war/corporate subsidy spending, such
constraints are immediately abandoned.
Hetereodox MMT exposes the lie of such DSGE myths - but faithful Ptolemaic 'progressives'
refuse to investigate or debate such Copernican macroeconomic sacrilege.
The recent TAI 'outlook' economic conference (proudly sponsored by 'The Australian'!! )
was a classic progressive 'fail'; loaded with orthodox 'experts' like Bowen and Keating
spouting austerity inducing neoliberal orthodoxy - not one heterodox economist was invited to
present the unwelcome, uncomfortable truth of sovereign nation macroeconomic reality.
Prof Bill Mitchell is Australia's most widely & internationally respected REAL
progressive heterodox academic - yet the TAI ignores him.
Neoliberalism won't die until it extracts the last breath of available wealth from
Australia's citizenry. It will die a savage death with the onset of the impending depression
'to end all depressions' when the collapsing housing bubble leaves citizens with a 'decades
long' bubble of unpayable private debt.
Only then will people realise they have been elaborately 'conned' - too late.
P.S. For all TRUE progressives:
Some brilliant short videos here
and here by Parody Project.
That's really the point, much as you might expect government like the Howard and Abbott ones
to have stuck to their claimed neo-liberal principles, neither substantially altered the
compulsory nature of the scheme, despite the fact that it ran more or less completely
contrary to Chicago School principles. Howard might have been fond of shouting "socialism" or
"nanny state" when he felt the need to criticise something, but deeds speak stronger than
words, and for all his p!ssing and moaning he was never going to do anything that stopped all
those truckloads of money finding their way to his friends in the banking industry.
Yes historically high mass immigration in Australia has been used as a trojan horse by the
adherents of neo-liberalism - to break down the pay and conditions of Australian workers and
their rights and entitlements.
By importing "ready made" skilled workers, neither the Government or the private sector have
had to go to the trouble of training their workforce nor bear any of the costs of educating
and training them.
As to the lower skilled imported workers, in the main, this is a crude device to cut out the
locals so that accepted or legislated pay and conditions can be lowered. Most of those
imported workers don't know their rights and are ripe for exploitation.
The shonks, rip off and quick buck merchants love neo-liberalism for the what it has done to
the Australian labour market.
And the Labor party has been complicit in all this - when it should have been protecting
Australians and Australian workers present and future from the ravaging impacts of
neo-liberalism.
For something that's supposedly dead, it still looks like neoliberalism is in charge to me.
The relentless commodification of every aspect of life continues apace. Money is still the
measure of everything and takes precedence over the environment, ethics, community,
creativity, discovery, and virtually everything else you care to name. When water thiefs, big
bankers, corrupt politicians, environmental despoilers, and those that start pointless wars
are IN GAOL, then I'll start to believe things are changing.
Neoliberalism is not simply an economic agenda. From the beginning it was conceived as and
then constructed to be much more than that - it was in fact as much a pedagogical cum
psychological operation to change minds across generations with regard to free-market
capitalism and thus to orient all thinking to that, than it was a matter of simple monetary
or trade policy. Of course, this had to be done with a good deal of repression and oppression
backing it up, here and there - Chile e.g. Thus electing neoliberalism is an effect of this
pedagogy over time - we are all schooled in its 'normality - and not a reflection of either
some natural desire for it or an educated choice.
I agree that we should be discussing fiscal policy but I suspect that Richard Denniss is
using a false frame for this topic. He probably adheres to the claim made by the
macroeconomic equivalent of pre-Copernican physics that a government that issues its own
currency, enforces taxes in that currency, and allows the currency to float in foreign
exchange markets can run out of its currency.
The fiscal policy of the federal government should be to employ all available labour in
socially useful and environmental sustainable productive activity, maintain price stability,
minimize inequality of income and wealth, and fund public services and infrastructure to the
maximum extent permitted by the resources that are available for sale in the government's
currency.
If you think that the government's fiscal policy should be to reduce a fiscal deficit or
deliver a fiscal surplus, you are a dill.
It makes no sense to target a particular fiscal balance because the outcome is driven
largely by the aggregated spending and saving decisions of the domestic non-government sector
and the external sector. The federal government does not control those variables.
The federal government needs to target economically, socially, and environmentally
desirable goals and allow the fiscal balance to reach whatever level is needed at any given
time to achieve those goals.
'Democracy' needs to be structural as well as a moral idea. Workers have been disempowered
and impoverished and disenfranchished by neoliberalism. An answer to structurally improve the
wealth AND democratic power of the workers is to build a HUGE co operative sector in each
economy: worker owned workplaces/businesses/concerns AND democratically run. THAT will
improve the situation for workers/punters: democracy where they live and work. Democracy
rooted not in fine ideas only about rights but bedded down in economic livelihoods. People
will take an interest in their local 'politics' and also understand more of the politics of
the nation. You don't have to get rid of 'capitalism' just give it a 'good run' for it's
money - some real COMPETITION. Cooperatively run Hospitals, owned by doctors and nurses and
other stakeholders - not for profit - that'll soon see the 'private' for profit' health
providers/rorters wind their prices and necks in. Socially owned, worker-owned,
government/taxpayer supported enterprise, work places, democratically run will boot up the
level of 'democracy' in our societies. We can still have voter style over-arching national
government of course. If you don't root democracy where people actually can participate and
which gives them a lot of control over their workplaces/livelihood, then it can all be
hijacked by the greedy and cunning (see neoliberalism). OH, a large cooperative sector in the
economy democratically run by workers won't deliver 'heaven on earth' - it'll still be run by
people!
It is also a tool of the neoliberals along with the whole neoliberal trend in macroeconomic
policy. The essential thing underlying this, is to try to reduce the power of government and
social forces that might exercise some power within the political economy -- workers and
others -- and put the power primarily in the hands of those dominating in the markets. That's
often the financial system, the banks, but also other elites. The idea of neoliberal
economists and policymakers being that you don't want the government getting too involved in
macroeconomic policy. You don't want them promoting too much employment because that might
lead to a raise in wages and, in turn, to a reduction in the profit share of the national
income.
Austerity fits into the mix very well Keeping wages low, or debt pressure high, means
workers will be less likely to complain or make demands. As workers struggle to provide their
families with all the temptations that a capitalist society offers, they become far less
likely to risk their employment, and less able to improve their situation.
At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They
have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding
ideology which all boils down to the cheap labour they depend on to make their fortunes.
It shows a great sense of inferiority and knowing our "proper"place, that the populace
apparently accepted the colloquial term for neo-liberalism or economic rationalism, as being
"trickle down economics" and that all that the populace deserved and was going to get was a
trickle of the alleged wealth and benefits created.
Why were most people so compliant and accepting of something that as a concept, from the
outset, was clearly signalling it would economically completely discriminate against the 99%
and was intended to provide such a meager share of the wealth and economic benefits
generated?
A quick look around the world provides clear evidence that there really are a lot of
alternatives.
That's the crux: many (western, developed) countries before us have
proven over and over again that the best type of democratic government is one in which
consensus is the basis for long-term decisions to the benefit of all. Is it tedious? Yes.
Frustrating at times? You bet. Slow? Indeed, quite often so. But the point is,
consensus-based decision making works and eventually is in everyone's interest (left,
right and centre), resulting in better long-term outcomes. With the added benefit that new
"majority" Governments won't throw out the children with the bathwater all the time.
I'd add one aspect to the article though, and that is to combine a form of proportional
representation with longer terms of Government. You won't get much meaningful done in
3 years, whatever form of representation you choose. 4 years, 5 years... whatever strikes the
best balance between governments getting some runs on the board and voters feeling empowered
to change government coalitions in the ballot box when they stuff up.
But what economic system worked in the interests of majority of population. There was only
one such system -- USA in 1935-1970th and it was the result of WWII and record profits of the US
corporation after the war, when both Europe and Japan were devastated.
In no way the USSR was social system that worked for the majority of population. It worked
for the Nomenklatura -- a pretty narrow caste, similar to current top 1% under
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism clearly works for the interests of the minority and against the interests of
the majority. Households are now worse off than they were 6 years ago and large businesses
are enjoying record profits. It feels as if the australian economy is being run for the
benefit of a small percentage of wealthy shareholders.
While a purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed
by decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favoring the economic interests of the few at the expense of the
many, and very often involving compulsorily actions like switch to 401K accounts. Which was stoke
of genius for neoliberals to fleeces common people. acquired
Speaking as no fan of neo-liberalism, but there is a risk that the term gets overused. Things
that the right have embraced with open arms, like compulsory retirement savings (which have
enriched the private sector, especially banks and their shareholders), would have caused
sharp intakes of breath from the steely-eyed theorists who came up with the concept. While a
purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed by
decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favouring the economic interests of the few at the expense
of the many, and very often involving compulsorily acquired public resources being
re-directed to business, with barely even the thinnest veneer of genuine theoretical
observance to the neo-liberal model. Both neo-liberalism itself, and bogus claims of its
practical use and benefits, need to be dead and buried.
I really would love the rich and powerful who basically prey on the average
person/worker/mums and dads, to be held accountable and penalised properly in relation to
their deeds. These bastards destroy families in their grab for greed, and almost every time
they are excused by their cohorts, and even go on to bigger and better opportunities to keep
feeding their voracious greedy appetites. Basically they steal, so why isn't their proceeds
of crime taken back by government; and why do they not do any jail time?
Natural monopolies like water and power, roads and public transport should be in public
hands. All call centres dealing with government issues should be done by public servants, not
outsourced to foreign corporations.
I'd start with a bank. Give people a non-greed infested alternative.
Under neo-liberalism we have gone from 1 person, 1 vote to $1, one vote. The con job that
is 'small government and little or no regulations' is bad for society and the environment.
Greed over need.
Dr. T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of
several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming
Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia
(both Clairview Books).
The current economic model being used by capitalist countries across the world is failing
most of the people in these countries while enriching tiny elites. Unfortunately, politicians
in these countries are often in the pockets of the elite or are themselves members of the
elite.
We need a new economic narrative which better reconciles the needs of the population with
the directives of the market.
Why not? Profits to the nation, not greedy corporates and their shareholders.
I think you will find there were no profits made that could be put "to the nation." When
the wall came down, the USSR and the entire eastern bloc were completely bankrupt.
As was Mao's China prior to the emergence of Deng and his "to get rich is glorious"
mantra, that set China on its current path. Of course his generally market-oriented approach
has since been bastardised to one of One Party State-capitalism dominated by cronyism,
corruption, and a perverted justice system.
Yes it has generated vast wealth, but it is an empire built on sand. As any analysis of
its shadow banking system will show.
And while the legions of newly minted millionaires of party benevolence celebrate, the
hundreds of millions stuck in poverty are left to fend for themselves.
Neoliberalism is a secular religion, so it doe need to be rational, to remains influential or even dominant, much like
Bolshevism or Trotskyism (actually neoliberalism should be viewed as a perverted mutation of Trotskyism -- Trotskyism for irch) .
It took 70 years for Bolshevism to became discredited and collapse (under the attack from neoliberalism).
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism might continues to exist in zombie state for a very long time.
Notable quotes:
"... Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. ..."
"... Why do you think that all around the world voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and Racism? ..."
"... While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk ..."
"... The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong. ..."
"... It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism. ..."
"... The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs, maintenance and associated investment. ..."
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and
role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Unfortunately, I see lots of deaths but none of them is neoliberalism. I can see death of
a decent safety net in Australia. Death of biodiversity. Death of ecosystems. Death of
intelligent debate. Death of science.
Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. The international
poverty trend has been decreasing over time only because the definition of poverty is to earn
less than $1.25 per day..... So, if you earn $10/day you are well above the poverty line:
Good luck living on that income in any OECD country!
Standards of living are decreasing in Australia... ever heard of the housing crisis? The
household debt crisis?.... Paying for hospital and medicines, education, electricity and
other services.... should I go on?.... ACOSS found that "there are just over 3 million people
(13.2%) living below the poverty line of 50% of median income – including 739,000
children (17.3%)".
"The evil neo-liberalism" has delivered poverty, massive inequality, dissatisfaction,
unemployment/sub-employment and casualization, collapse of public services, high costs of
living.... and deterioration of the environment...
Why do you think that all around the world
voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are
desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and
Racism?
While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's
rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having
suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk.
The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused
by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to
advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong.
It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and
Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will
remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism.
Abso-bloody-lutely! The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an
effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit
motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs,
maintenance and associated investment. It's so painfully obvious that the market has not met
the needs of the average citizen without absurd cost. Bring on the revolution!
What made anyone think neo-liberalism was going to work? Why was this even tried or got past
a focus group?
Only the Murdoch press ever dreamed this could have any merit and a few totally selfish and
controlling wealthy people. 2008 and the GFC should have killed this idea instead it gained
traction as the perpetrators not only were not prosecuted but were subsidised to create more
havoc. Find the culprits and jail them ... it is not too late.
"... What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy. ..."
"... Bring back a Commonwealth Bank! In fact bring back State run Electricity, Gas and Water utilities... ..."
"... The Coalition these days proudly subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form. ..."
All essential infrastructure should be Nationalised. Water electricity supply and generation,
ports and railways, educational facilities, one major bank, one country wide telco and mail
delivery. Remove the for profit aspect, and they become assets. In at least a few of these
they also provide training opportunities across a wide spectrum of careers
Nationalise the banks and the Mining Industry .
Take back control of outrageous wages in both these sectors and return profits to the
taxpayer .
Nationalise the State Governments in other words get rid of them and appoint federal
controlled administrators same with local councils, sack the lot of them and appoint
administrators.
Just like the AFP is "nationalised", or education is also to a big extent "nationalised",
alongside a big chunk of the health system.... so we can nationalise other things, such as
the modes of production and distribution of energy, major mineral resources, etc.
What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive
role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither
Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy.
Which party is for a Mixed Economy Social Democracy?.... Labor and to some extent the
Greens. A bunch of independents are also happy with the concept.... Together they are
currently a majority, only waiting for a Federal election.
"... I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or "liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector. ..."
"... Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this project is "outsourcing". ..."
"... As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next rent-seeking opportunity. ..."
"... In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus". And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!") fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions. ..."
"... And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty - inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs. ..."
"... "Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition that occurs is not for price but for profit. ..."
"... We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists, when the "leader" knows everything? ..."
"... There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress', between wars, it seems. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted') deep in the heart of economics. ..."
"... In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet few social justice advocates have heard of it. ..."
"... George gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living memory, by the modern aristocracy. ..."
"... In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the living world on which s/he depends. ..."
I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or
"liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project
more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an
authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and
inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long
debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the
energy sector.
Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this
project is "outsourcing". If you've had a look at The Canberra Times over the last couple of
weeks there have been quite a few articles about outsourcing parts of Medicare and Centrelink, using labour hire companies and so on – is this part of a current LNP plan
to "sell off" parts of the government before Labour takes the reins in May?
As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and
financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next
rent-seeking opportunity.
Neoliberalism "dead"?
I think not.
It is riveted on the country like a straitjacket.
Which is exactly what it was always intended to be, a system gamed and rigged to ensure the
wage-earning scum obtain progressively less and less of the country's productive wealth,
however much they contributed to it.
The wage theft and exploitation Neoliberalism fosters has become the new norm.
Neoliberal idealogues thickly infest Federal and State Treasuries.
In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic
pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus".
And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!")
fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as
IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions.
The IPA itself has moles in govt at every level--even in your local Council.
Certainly in ours.
Neoliberalism is "dead"?
Correction.
Neoliberalism is alive, thriving---and quick to ensure its glaring deficiencies and
inequities are solely attributable to its opponents. Now THERE'S a surprise.....
Agree! And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology
about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty -
inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts
to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs.
Neoliberalism will not be dead until the underpinning of neoliberalism is abandoned by ALP
and Greens. That underpinning is their mindless attachment to "budget repair" and "return to
surplus". The federal government's "budget" is nothing like a currency user's budget.
Currency users collect in order to spend whereas every dollar spent by the federal government
is a new dollar and every dollar taxed by the federal government is an ex-dollar. A currency
cannot sensibly have "debt" in the currency that it issues and no amount of surplus or
deficit now will enhance or impair its capacity to spend in future. A currency issuer does
not need an electronic piggybank, or a Future Fund, or a Drought Relief Fund. It can't max
out an imaginary credit card. It's "borrowing" is just an exchange of its termless no-coupon
liabilities (currency) for term-limited coupon-bearing liabilities (bonds). The federal
budget balance is no rational indicator of any need for austerity or for stimulus. The
rational indicators are unemployment (too small a "deficit"/too large a surplus) and
inflation (too large a "deficit"/too small a "surplus"). Federal taxation is where dollars go
to die. It doesn't "fund" a currency issuer's spending - it is there to stop the dollars it
issues from piling up and causing inflation and to make room for spending by democratically
elected federal parliament. The name of the game is to balance the economy, not the entirely
notional and fundamentally irrelevant "budget".
"Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do
their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even
where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition
that occurs is not for price but for profit.
And changing the electoral system? Yes indeed. After years of observation it seems to me
that the problem with our politics is not individual politicians (although there are notable
exceptions) but political parties. Rigid control of policies and voting on party instruction
(even by the Greens) makes the proceedings of parliament a complete waste of time. If every
policy had to run the gauntlet of 150 people all voting by their conscience we would have
better policy. The executive functions could be carried out by a cabinet also elected from
those members. But not going to happen - too many vested interests in the parties and their
corporate sponsors.
With the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (even though nearly 30% of electors refused to vote)
it may be a little presumptuous to dissect the dead corpse of neoliberalism, as Richard
Denniss' hopes that we can.
What is absolutely gob-smacking is that Brazilians voted for him; a man that Glenn Greenwald
describes as "far more dangerous than Trump" , that Bolsonaro envisages military
dictatorships as "being a far more superior form of government" advocating a civil war
in order to dispose of the left.
Furthermore, the election of this far-right neoliberal extremist also threatens the Amazon
forest and its indigenous people; with a global impact that will render combatting climate
change even more difficult.
Locally, recent Liberal Party battles over leadership have included the neolib factor, as the
lunatic right in that party - who I suspect would all love to be a Bolsonaro themselves -
aggressively activate their grumblings and dissension.
Oh, Richard how I wish you were right; but in the Victorian election campaign - currently
underway - I have seen Socialist candidates behaving in a manner that doesn't garner hope in
a different way of doing politics.
The fact that 'our' democracy is based on an adversarial, partisan system leaves me with
little hope.
Alain Badiou wrote that "ours is not a world of democracy but a world of imperial
conservatism using democratic phraseology" ; and until that imposition is discarded 'our'
democracy will remain whatever we are told it is, and neolibs will continue to shove their
bullshit down our throats as much as they can.
We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new
adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to
Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South
Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus
infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists,
when the "leader" knows everything?
Have the people of the world abrogated their democratic responsibility?
Or is it the gerrymandering chicanery of US Republican backers/politicians( so long as you
control the voting machines ) that have sent the ugly message to the world, Power is yours
for the making and taking by any means that ignores the public's rights in the decision
making process. Has the "neo-liberal" world delivered a corrupted system of democracy that
has deliberately alienated the world's population from actively participating fully in the
full awareness that their vote counts and will be counted?
Do we need to take back the controls of democracy to ensure that it is the will of the
people and not a manipulation by vested interest groups/individuals? You're darn
tootin'!!!
A thoughtful piece. Thanks. There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which
have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary
relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress',
between wars, it seems.
Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the
latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual
origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone
wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted')
deep in the heart of economics.
Instead of trying to understand Neo-Classical Economics it is perhaps more instructive to
understand what it was built, layer by layer, to obscure. First the Land system, then the
Wealth system, and finally the Money system (hived off into a compartment - 'macroeconomics').
Importantly, three entirely different categories of "thing" .
In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world
by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only
published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet
few social justice advocates have heard of it.
George set out to discover why the worst poverty always seemed to accompany the most
progress. By chasing down the production process to its ends, and tracing where the proceeds
were going, he succeeded spectacularly. From Progress and Poverty , Chapter 17 - "The Problem Explained"
:
Three things unite in production: land, labor, and capital. Three parties divide the
output: landowner, laborer, and capitalist. If the laborer and capitalist get no more as
production increases, it is a necessary inference that the landowner takes the gain.
George
gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic
history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living
memory, by the modern aristocracy.
In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity
from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical
Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the
living world on which s/he depends.
Einstein was a fan of George, and used his methods of thought-experiment and powerful
inductive reasoning to discover Relativity, twenty years later. Henry Georges brilliant
insights into Land (aka nature), Wealth (what you want, need), and Money
(sharing mechanism) are as relevant as ever, and until they are rediscovered, we are likely
to re-run the 1900's over and over, with fewer and fewer resources.
Neoliberalism, the economic stablemate of big religion's Prosperity Evangelism cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
. Dual streams of bull shit to confuse the citizens while the Country's immense wealth is
stolen.
"... Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given 'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules, foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts. A wide range of policies can be challenged. ..."
Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given
'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the
ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational
vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules,
foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts.
A wide range of policies can be challenged.
Yeah! Philip Morris comes to mind. "The cost to taxpayers of the Australian government's
six-year legal battle with the tobacco giant Philip Morris over plain packaging laws can
finally be revealed, despite the government's efforts to keep the cost secret.
The commonwealth government spent nearly $40m defending its world-first plain packaging
laws against Philip Morris Asia, a tobacco multinational, according to freedom of information
documents.
Documents say the total figure is $38,984,942.97."
Neo- liberalism is not dead its only just started. We are not in an era of democracy and
freedom but of Oligarchy and governmental servitude.
Less restrictions doesn't mean freedom it mean free booters, privateers , and plunderers are
given government support and handouts the only thing free is their right to take.
The pirates who plunder the most are given Hero status and those plundered are laughed at
as losers.
Looks around you governments are becoming agents of theft find ways to channel money to
those who don't need it . They say its right wing fascism but its not for all their evil the
fascists were determined to improve the lot of the people, however perversely they went about
it.
What we have today is legalised privateering.
None of the political parties today have the least intention to change a system that works
for them.
Fred, I can't remember who said it, but an observer of human systems and institutions made
the observation that unless the prevalent social, economic or political structures of the day
was not either changed or renewed, then those within the system would 'game' it; corrupting
it from within for personal benefit to the detriment of society as a whole.
This perfectly sums up neo-liberalism.
Whatever positive virtues were extolled when this ideology was adopted wholesale by so many
governments and societies (and please spare me the '-we delivered billions out of poverty!'
line, that was a positive byproduct, never the objective of neo-liberalism), it has since
become thoroughly corrupted, serving an ever shrinking percentage of society - entrenching a
super-wealthy 'ruling class' that makes a mockery of the idea of democracy.
It's time to ditch this 21st Century feudalistic construct, and replace it with something
that serves the whole of society with more justice than this current gravy train for the one
percenters.
Fully agree with the things being said here. The privatisation of essential services has been
a bloody disaster. Telecommunications, health, education energy production/distribution. Look
at what the NSW conservatives are doing the the public transport or the feds have done to our
communications, including Telstra the ABC and SBS.
But the issue is that this will just turn into an ongoing political football with each
successive conservative government trying to sell off the farm again.
These critical public services and infrastructure must be protected in law needing a
referendum to make major changes. Also their funding must be guaranteed and they must be run
at arms length from the government to reduce political interference and ensure they are
delivering the best possible service and are competitive with the huge private sector
operators.
There charter of operation and obligation to the public must be extremely robust and
clearly outline their duties of care to operate in a transparent and open fashion putting the
public interest as a priority.
The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but
democratic re-engagement.
You can have democratic engagement voting for a 'neo-liberal economic agenda'. In fact
we've had it for decades.
But of course not even the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly
subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their
preferred form.
They're politicians - they've never applied their ideological views in a pure way. This is
nothing new.
Ironically, one of the major objections to proportional representation in Australia has
been that it tends to deliver minority government, a situation that the major parties
prefer to avoid.
There's a big difference between minority government by a major party + a handful of
votes, versus a minority government by a handful of minority parties, or a major party + a
minor party. They tend to lead to the kind of instability we'd prefer to avoid.
The death of neoliberalism means
I think you've called it a bit prematurely. Both major parties here are still peddling
neo-liberalism, with policies which only differ on the margins.
"... Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of 'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know. ..."
"... All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism & I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list. ..."
"... I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next fight must be. ..."
"... In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies. ..."
"... The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts. ..."
"... No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate! ..."
Never forget that fascism is the natural defence mechanism of capital. After it is accrued,
it must be defended. The current trend in global politics is not an anomaly but an entirely
predictable outcome.
Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the
desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a
strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks
power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of
'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know.
It's too late for the US I fear, and time is rapidly running out for the UK if they don't
pull their finger out and have another referendum before the self immolation of Brexit.
All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism
& I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list.
If
Australia does swing the pendulum to the left, it, along with NZ, will be one of the few
countries to do so. De-privatising will not be easy & will be met with a huge reactionary
backlash. They'll need to tread very carefully if they want to stay in government.
Neoliberalism may be dead but the neoliberals in the government will never admit it as they
seamlessly transition to authoritarian nationalism with populist promises - and failure to
deliver on them.
The neoliberal project was always a philosophical cover for crony capitalism that betrayed
the public interest by rewarding vested interests for their patronage, perverted democracy,
and served as a mechanism for perverting the natural function of an economy - to fairly
distribute goods, resources, and services throughout society - to favor the welfare of the
few over the many.
The self-interested culture of neoliberalism - the cult of the individual that denies the
common good - pervades every aspect of Australia's life as a nation - business, politics,
sport, education, and health - denying and crowding out public spirit, selfless service, and
societal wellbeing.
For meaningful change to occur there must be a rebirth of the conception of the public
good, and the virtue and necessity of acting to realise it.
However at this stage there is not a communal recognition of what the problem is let alone
how to go about repairing it. For that to happen there must be a widely accepted narrative
that naturally leads to the obvious actions that must be take to redress the damage done by
the neoliberal con job: decreasing economic inequality, restoring democracy, and rebuilding a
sense of common cause.
Piecemeal change will not be sufficient to enact the the sweeping transformation that has
to occur in every department of life. It is not enough to tax multinationals, to have a
federal integrity commission, to build a renewable future, or to move to proportional
representation.
Someone, some party, some coherent philosophical perspective has to explain why it must be
done.
It's certainly the case that the Liberal party, in particular, are now using ideas that fall
outside and to the right of neo-liberalism, but it's also obviously the case that
neo-liberalism and current Liberal thinking share the same underlying goal. Namely, the
transfer of wealth and power towards a narrower and narrower group of people and
corporations.
That suggests the death of neo-liberalism is coming about because – having done so
much damage already – it's no longer capable of delivering the required results, and
that we're moving into a new phase of the death spiral. I think that can also be seen in both
the US (where Trump is using the identified problems of neo-liberalism to further the same
basic agenda, but with less decorum and a larger cadre of useful idiots) and the UK (where
there's still a very strong possibility that Brexit will be used as an excuse to roll back
great swathes of social and democratic safeguards).
Perhaps even more worrying – given the latest reports on how we're destroying
habitat as well as the climate, and how much of our biodiversity is in South America,
particularly the Amazon – is that Brazil is how on a similar path.
The likelihood is that the Liberal party won't get away with what they have planned, but
they – and the forces behind them – certainly won't stop trying. And
unfortunately it's far from obvious that the Labor party will repudiate neo-liberalism
anytime soon. That they signed up for the latest iteration of TPP is hardly a good omen.
Democratic re-engagement is the better way forward from neo-liberalism, but unfortunately
I think it's unlikely to be the one that we end up taking.
All of that said, the deepest problem of all is the way in which democracy and government
have been corrupted, often via the media, but typically at the behest of corporations, and if
there is a way forward it has to be found in addressing those interactions
I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But
around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next
fight must be.
In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased
toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies.
But what happens when we are forced into an economic system that makes us compete at every
level? The logical outcome is societal decline or collapse.
Perhaps the worst aspect of neoliberalism was its infection of the Labor party. This has
left our social infrastructure alarmingly exposed.
The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no
means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through
narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would
suggest the opposite.
No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate!
Thank you Richard Denniss we need to highlight this more and more and start educating the
dumbed down population saturated with neoliberal snake oil!
The Brits recently landed in Mexico. Will they use the Mercosur-EU FTAS to secretly continue
to hold the grip on Europe? Will they install additional military bases in MAKEDONIA,
ALBANIA, KOSOVA the heroin-smuggling human trafficking FAKE US state, BULGARIA, to finish the
AMBO pipeline from IRAQ to GREECE?
City of London Parasites' Paradise (Or the Best Criminal Sanctuary Money Can Buy)
From: Newsbud.com
"with multi-billion pound drug, arms, people smuggling and sex-slave cartels. The "Brits"
specialize in laundering funds from the Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, Russian, Polish, Czech,
Nigerian narco-kings. Albanian white slavers have their 'private bankers' at prestigious City
banks with a preference for graduates of the London School of Economics. Bi-lingual Greek
kleptocrats, lifelong billion dollar tax evaders, fleeing from their pillaged homeland have
their favorite real estate brokers, who never engage in any sort of naughty 'due diligence'
which might uncover improper tax returns. The City Boys with verve and positive initiative,
aided and abetted by the hyper-kinetic "Tony" Blair's open door policy to swindlers and
saints of all colors and creeds, welcomed each and every Russian gangster-oligarch-democrat,
especially those who paid cash for multi-pound 'Olde English' landmark estates'.
@JLK naling
of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated).
For example, it's still completely unacceptable in middle class British society to support
Nationalism (you're a Nazi) or Anglo racial identity (other races are welcome to their
identities – but if you're and Anglo you're a racist).
It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will
toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's
already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section.
Greetings. We are Anonymous. We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the
activities of the 'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government.
The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian
propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has
in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and
Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic
communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.
'UK Integrity Initiative is Meddling in The Affairs of Other Nations'26.11.2018
A leaked hybrid warfare plan of the British government, known as the
"Integrity Initiative," published by the hacker group Anonymous, has become a theme of
discussion among scholars in Europe. Sputnik spoke to Professor David Miller of the University
of Bristol on a plan allegedly adopted by London to counter "Russian propaganda." Sputnik: It
[Integrity Initiative] states that its main aim is to counter Russian disinformation, however,
what was happening with the Moncloa Campaign' in Spain suggests other motives does it not? Read
more at https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811261070148913-uk-integrity-russia-propaganda/
Statement on Russian media publication of hacked II documents26 November 2018
EU-wide 'anti-Russian psy-ops' program
confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak26 Nov, 2018
A network exposed by
leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at curbing "Russian propaganda" has
confirmed receiving money from the British government, while Anonymous has denied on Twitter
that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a network claiming to fight
disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II documents, which purports to
show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals cooperating with it, has
been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous collective. A major
Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak. Read more at
https://www.rt.com/news/444899-uk-psyop-leak-reaction/
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
"... The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big State. ..."
"... Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless, to be efficient and responsive ..."
"... The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe
he IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr.
The International Monetary Fund has admitted that some of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis
were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was "bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have
been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the Eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of
course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye
to the Big State.
Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree.
The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen
– that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places
the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's
what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments have been obliged to limit their
activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task, supposedly, is to get the free
market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatization of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer un-sustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
"... 'Neoliberalism' is just a sanitised-sounding expression, to cover-up the fact that what we are really seeing here is re-branded, far-right, corporatist ideology. ..."
"... There is a major dividing line. There are those who recognise the abuses of the system and lobby for changes and there are those who lobby for further exploitation. ..."
"... The West became over-indebted when it embraced globalisation which necessarily impoverishes the Middle and Working Classes of the developed nations. A chap called Jimmy Goldsmith warned of this and was widely condemned for it. There is another issue Guardianistas would rather not confront : you can a welfare state or you can have open borders. But you can't have both. ..."
"... Private enterprise is inefficient because at it's heart it rules out cooperation. Being happiest if it's a monopoly, there's nothing a business would like better than wipe out all competition. ..."
"... Right now, the neoliberals think that those in the Far East are the workers and those in the West are the consumers, until the Far East becomes the market and wages so low in the West that they become the workers, unless of course some kind souls decide to invest money in Education, Health and infrastructure in Africa on a huge scale, so we then have Africa as the workers and the far East as the market, and the West, apart from those who own large numbers of shares or business outright, presumably either starve to death or pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and start all over again, inventing and setting up completely new industries, providing the newly universally educated and healthy Chinese and Africans and South Americans haven't done it first. ..."
"... The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes ..."
"... Except it's not. It is still very much alive and growing. ..."
"... deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20 years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed. ..."
"... "Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate." However, the gains for the transnational rich are immediate and enormous, while the failure of their markets is slow and, so far, almost entirely painless. ..."
"... Accountants now hold the whip hand in government and business. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. They advocate selling off industries, outsourcing to low wage economies, zero hours contracts and deregulation (under the bogus campaign line of cutting red tape). ..."
"... Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can , because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... If you invent a set of rules that says a country that deficit spends above an arbitrary percentage of its GDP is horribly inefficient and far too high then it should not be a surprise that when that happens, it is described as such. ..."
"... But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured, law-abiding and financially secure people ..."
"... The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes is gobbling up the last scintilla of surplus that can be extracted from the poor ( anyone not independently wealthy). ..."
'Neoliberalism' is just a sanitised-sounding expression, to cover-up the fact that what we are really seeing here is re-branded,
far-right, corporatist ideology.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
There is a major dividing line. There are those who recognise the abuses of the system and lobby for changes and there
are those who lobby for further exploitation.
So on the one hand there are relatively rich philanthropists who are quietly supporting campaigns to redistribute wealth and
our abstaining, and on the other you have people arguing for repealing employment legislation.Worst of the lot are people who
pretend to care about the poor but then proceed to fill their own boots.
As consequence people like Warren Buffet should perhaps be among the good guys, whilst people like Tony Blair are the worst
of lot.
All very true. The failures of markets are well documented in economics: the tendency towards monopoly, the failure to value social
goods etc.
In addition, it is ironic that the arch advocates of the 'free market' came begging ( read lobbying) to their governments insisting
upon public financial bailouts for themselves or their counter parties. It was the 'free markets' failure to correctly price 'risk'
that was the route of the economic collapse.
As regards access to 'free markets' it seems patently obvious that if you extract the most money from that market (Amazon et
al), you should contribute a fair share towards the infrastructure of that market: roads, educations, health care etc.
@EllisWyatt - ... we have a real problem with corporations that have a default setting of minimize taxes through ever more
complex structures. It can't be beyond the wit of HMRC to reduce the complexity of the tax legislation and make it harder to
avoid? The prize is continued access to the UK market
We also have the problem that for half the households in the land the level of welfare and benfits rather than wages is the
major determinant of their disposable income and general prosperity.
The welfare code is now comparable in size to the tax code. The tax-benefit affairs of the working poor in the UK are now becoming
as complex as those of the companies that employ them.
The welfare rights industry, which is essentially tax-benefit-lawyering for claimants, is now as large and complex as the tax-lawyering
industry for companies.
It really is insane that we set the minimum wage so low that it attracts income tax, and then attempt to collect tax from the
employing company to fund a tax credit to top up the same low wages that the same company is paying.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is
enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market
Does it? where does it say that? An article which as usual blanket condemns "financial institutions" but actually means banks.
The West became over-indebted when it embraced globalisation which necessarily impoverishes the Middle and Working Classes of
the developed nations. A chap called Jimmy Goldsmith warned of this and was widely condemned for it. There is another issue Guardianistas
would rather not confront : you can a welfare state or you can have open borders. But you can't have both.
Though I'd say private enterprise is capable of building markets - but not of sustaining them. Take books: If few people
know how to read, someone will start a fee paying school to teach those who can pay for it. Then books will take off. And that
will generate money for some, who'll send their kids to school.
However it will always, inevitably, crash at some point: Business can build up, but will always do it in destructuve cycles
- exactly like the brush fires that destroy and regenerate the savannas. As somebright spark once said: Capitalism contains the
seeds of it's own destruction, or something along those lines.
And we don't want to live like that - so we have regulation, and the state.And the state fertilises, and safeguards, by cutting
the grass, making mulch, and spreading the rich gooey muck all over the nice, green, verdant, state controlled pampa.
The cowboys, now, they prefer no cutting of grass, and letting their cattle chomp away undistrurbed. And now my analogy is
starting to wear thin.
The bottom line: Private enterprise is inefficient because at it's heart it rules out cooperation. Being happiest if it's
a monopoly, there's nothing a business would like better than wipe out all competition.
Hence, the necessity for state spending, and state regulation, which the private sector is blind to, because it can't look
ahead.
People are members of families, and are employers and workers, who are customers or clients, and part of
their local communities and professions and trades and hobbyists/clubs who are large scale wholesale consumers who create the
markets that provides employment and income to individuals who are workers. And, and, one big circle.
Right now, the neoliberals think that those in the Far East are the workers and those in the West are the consumers, until
the Far East becomes the market and wages so low in the West that they become the workers, unless of course some kind souls decide
to invest money in Education, Health and infrastructure in Africa on a huge scale, so we then have Africa as the workers and the
far East as the market, and the West, apart from those who own large numbers of shares or business outright, presumably either
starve to death or pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and start all over again, inventing and setting up completely new industries,
providing the newly universally educated and healthy Chinese and Africans and South Americans haven't done it first.
OK. I was against it for a long time, but go ahead. There's no way of avoiding it. Eat the Rich. Apart from the fact that ultra
thin is fashionable, and with all that dieting and exercising, they are the only people who actually get the time for lots of
exercise these days, and they'll taste incredibly tough and stringy.
@CaptainGrey - Ssshhh not on CiF, we all know that capitalism has failed its just that we can't point to a successful alternative
model because such a thing has never existed, its just that this time its different and the model I advocate will lead us all
to the sunny uplands of utopia.
Obviously there will be a little bit of coercion and oppression to get us to those sunny uplands, but you can't make an omlette
etc. plus don't worry that stuff will only happen to "bad people"
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes
Except it's not. It is still very much alive and growing. The "alternatives" have crashed and burned save Cuba and North
Korea. Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and countless people have gained
as a result.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20 years. The pure market is a fantasy just
as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed
the false value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
In the 19th century based on experience the public services became part of the public sector to avoid corruption and corporate
blackmail. The neoclassical revolution of the late 20th century has pushed us back to days when elites regarded the state as their
property. Democracy was a threat which won out either through the British model or violent revolution. A small elite cannot endure
if the majority feel exploited.
The Bilderberg Conference should look to the past and learn from the mistakes committed. Neoclassicism will eventually impoverish
them
@UnevenSurface - Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will
slowly evaporate.
"Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate."
However, the gains for the transnational rich are immediate and enormous, while the failure of their markets is slow and, so far,
almost entirely painless.
@UnevenSurface - I think corporation tax is becoming obsolete given globalization and the increasing dominance of online / global
distribution.
Amazon, Starbucks (and to a lesser extent Google) need to have people on the ground in their market, for customer service,
distribution, warehouse staff, baristas etc. So they'll pay employer taxes etc.
The question is is that enough? I think we are missing a trick with the UK market due to outdated tax legislation that hasn't
really changed in 30 years.
After the US the UK is arguably the most attractive market in the world. Large, homogenous, wealthy with a low propensity to
save and a rapid rate of adoption of new technology / products. We need to think about how we can exploit this in relation to
corporate taxes because even though I am far from left wing, we have a real problem with corporations that have a default setting
of minimise taxes through ever more complex structures.
It can't be beyond the wit of HMRC to reduce the complexity of the tax legislation and make it harder to avoid? The prize is
continued access to the UK market
Accountants now hold the whip hand in government and business. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
They advocate selling off industries, outsourcing to low wage economies, zero hours contracts and deregulation (under the bogus
campaign line of cutting red tape).
All of these policies will ultimately end up with capitalism destroying itself. Low wage stagnation will result in penniless
consumers which results in no growth which results in cuttin wages to maintain shareholder returns which results in penniless
consumers etc etc etc. All our institutions are gradually eroded and life for the average citizen will become more and more unpleasant.
Profit share may be a way forward, it's not perfect, companies can effectively use it to freeze wages and benefit from unpaid
overtime, that creates unemployment as four people working a couple of hours extra ever day are denying someone else a job, but
used in the right way it could ensure people get a share in the wealth they help create.
At the sharp end it's tough, at the
company I worked at, all the managers were summoned to a meeting in September and told they had until Christmas to increase turnover
and profits, or they would be out of a job.
At the same company, one of my managers complained that a successful manager at another branch was a crook. The CEO replied
'Yes, but he's a crook that makes a million pounds in profit every year'. I wonder how Deborah's article would have gone down
with him?
Everything was easier when the U S and Europe ran the world's economies with Bank regulations, currency controls and only the
establishment could avoid income, capital gains and IHT taxes and grow wealthy generation after generation. Today there are simply
too many players in the global arena and the rules have been torn up. We are in a jungle where greed is rife and only the powerful
and corrupt survive, shipping and burying their loot in offshore havens.
We need a new global order with a change of mentality
and more morality among the world's politicians, banking and corporate leaders. Unless we end corruption and exploitation of natural
resources in the poor nations and a fairer distribution of the economic wealth the world faces economic and social collapse
Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't
be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can , because they are more powerful than governments.
Is it beyond the wit of government to close these (perfectly legal) loopholes? Otherwise, what you are asking for is for these
companies to make charitible donations to government - nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not hide behind the misleading
term 'tax avoidance' - companies are obliged to minimise taxes within the law, face it.
It is perfectly clear that in much of the EU public expenditure has been horribly inefficient and far too high
If you invent a set of rules that says a country that deficit spends above an arbitrary percentage of its GDP is horribly
inefficient and far too high then it should not be a surprise that when that happens, it is described as such.
Whether that has any basis in reality or, as I suspect, is only relevant within its own ridiculous framework, is surely the
question.
Deborah Orr is established writer for the Guardian and Married to a Will Self whose is almost certainly a millionaire. She
is one of the rich. The idea that envy is driving her politics is just utterly absurd, and suggests a total lack of reflection.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy,
cultured, law-abiding and financially secure people
Not really; Amazon is just as happy to sell us trashy films, multipacks of chocolate, obesity drugs and baseball bats to stove
our neighbour's head in. There's certainly an argument to be made that companies should have a duty to invest in the infrastructure
that enables their product to be transported, stored etc...but they shouldn't be expected to give a toss if their customers are
unhealthy ignoramuses. A market's a market.
But some countries manage to do this much more efficiently and effectively than others.
In Europe it would appear to be the Social Democratic Nordic countries and Germany which has very strong employment rights.
Korea's economic growth was based on government investment and a degree of protectionism. These are precisely the ideas that neoliberalism
opposes.
If they had adopted The Keynes Plan at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference then the IMF and the World Bank would never have been
set up. We most likely would not have had the euro crisis and the problem of trade imbalances between counties would most likely
have gone away.
Now that is what I call 'Keynesian'. Feel free to continue to make up your own definitions though.
Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs in an ever more divided world run by The Bilderbergers who play
the politicians like puppets.
@emkayoh - I am not sure its in its death throes, I think what we are seeing is capitalism attempting to transform itself again.
The success of that transformation will depend on how willing people across the western world to put up with reduced welfare,
poverty pay and almost no employment rights. If we say no and make things too hot for the ruling class we have a chance to take
control of the future direction of our world, if not then what's the point.
This is a strange rant. Everyone agrees that free markets need to be nurtured by appropriate state institutions. But some countries
manage to do this much more efficiently and effectively than others. It is perfectly clear that in much of the EU public expenditure
has been horribly inefficient and far too high.
There is no contradiction between being in favour of free markets and believing that markets and societies should be nurtured
appropriately. We think people should be free and all accept that they should be nurtured.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"?
Corporate taxation is best explained as the license that business pays to access the market -- which is in turn created through
the schools, hospitals, roads, etc. that the tax pays for. Unfortunately the new Corporate Social Irresponsibility being acted
out by multinationals today neatly avoids paying that license, and sooner or later will damage them. Multinationals need to recognize
that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate.
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes is gobbling up the last scintilla of surplus that can be extracted
from the poor ( anyone not independently wealthy).
"... What sticks in the neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses, and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow! ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
"... when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s, that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs with a veneer of democracy ..."
"... The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior. ..."
"... If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares about them. ..."
"... Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy, but I digress... ..."
"... There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years. ..."
"... I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy. Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove ..."
"... 97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries. ..."
"... The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's Income. ..."
"... To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around 250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with debt. ..."
This private good, public bad is a stupid idea, and a totally artificial divide. After all,
what are "public spends"? It is the money from private individuals, and companies,
clubbing together to get services they can't individually afford.
What sticks in the
neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses,
and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow!
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
"Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won and countless people have gained as a result."
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves with
working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action. Cuba has hung on because people
there compare themselves with their nearest capitalist neighbor Haiti and they don't want a
piece of that action. North Korea well North Korea is North Korea.
Isn't it this beneficial capitalism that is being threatened now though? When the wall
came down it was assumed that Eastern European countries would become more like us. Some have
but who would have thought that British working people would now be told, by the likes of
Kwasi Kwarteng and his Britannia Unchained chums, that we have to learn to accept working
conditions that are more like those in the Eastern European countries that got left behind
and that we are now told that our version of Capitalism is inferior to the version adopted by
the Communist Party of China?
@bullwinkle - No , when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s,
that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008.
Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs
with a veneer of democracy.
This type of government began in America about 150 years ago with the Rockefellers,
Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Ford etc who took advantage of new inventions, cheap immigrant labour
and financial deregulation in finance and social mores to amass wealth for themselves and
chaos and austerity for workers.
All this looks familiar again today with new and old oligarchs hiding behind large
corporations taking advantage of the invention of the €uro, mass immigration into
western Europe and deregulation of the financial "markets" and social mores to amass wealth
for a super-wealthy elite and chaos and austerity for workers.
So if we want to see where things went wrong we need only go back 150 years to what happened
to America. There we can also see our future?
The beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and
countless people have gained as a result.
At one and the same time being privatized and having their funding squeezed, a direct
result of the neoliberal dogma capitalism of austerity. Free access is being eroded by the
likes of ever larger student loans and prescription costs for a start.
they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than
governments
Let's not get carried away here. Let's consider some of the things governments can do,
subject only to a 5 yearly check and challenge:
force people upon pain of imprisonment to pay taxes to them
pay out that tax money to whomever they like
spend money they don't have by borrowing against obligations imposed on future taxpayers
without their agreement
kill people in wars, often from the comfort of a computer screen thousands of miles
away
print money and give it to whomever they like,
get rid of nation state currencies and replace them with a single, centrally controlled
currency
make laws and punish people who break them, including the ability to track them down in
most places in the world if they try and run away.
use laws to create monopolies and favour special interests
Let's now consider what power apple have...
- they can make iPhones and try to sell them for a profit by responding to the demands of
the mass consumer market. That's it. In fact, they are forced to do this by their owners who
only want them to do this, and nothing else. If they don't do this they will cease to
exist.
The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good
for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more
shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior.
If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The
government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to
spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster
lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares
about them. Remember, that Green Energy is big business, just like Big Pharma and Big Oil.
Most government shills have personally invested in Green Energy not because they care about
the environment, only because they know that it is a safe investment protected by government
for government. The same goes for large corporations who befriend government and visa
versa.
@NeilThompson - It's all very well for Deborah to recommend that the well paid share work.
Journalists, consultants and other assorted professionals can afford to do so. As a
self-employed tradesman, I'd be homeless within a month.
@SpinningHugo - Interesting that those who are apparently concerned with prosperity for all
and international solidarity are happy to ignore the rest of the world when it's going well,
preferring to prophesy apocalypse when faced with government spending being slightly reduced
at home.
@1nn1t - That is a point which just isn't made enough. This is the first group of politicians
for whom a global conflict seems like a distant event.
As a result we have people like Blair who see nothing wrong with invading countries at a
whim, or conservatives and UKIP who fail to understand the whole point of the European Court
of Human Rights.
They seem to act without thought of our true place in the world, without regard for the
truly terrible capacity humanity has for self destruction.
Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is
somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy,
but I digress...
The main problem with replacing neoliberalism with a more rational, and fairer system,
entails that people like Deborah accept that they will be less wealthy. And that my friends is the main problem. People like Deborah, while they are more than
happy to point the fingers at others, are less than happy to accept that they are also part
of the problem.
(Generalisation Caveat: I don't know in actuality if Deborah would be unhappy to be less
wealthy in exchange for a fairer system, she doesn't say)
Good critique of conservative-neoliberalism, unless you subscribe to it and subordinate any
morals or other values to it.
She mentions an internal tension and I think that's because conservatism and neoliberal
market ideology are different beasts.
There are different models of capitalism quite clearly the social democratic version in
Scandinavia or the "Bismarkian" German version have worked a lot better than the UKs.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign
that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the
problem.
How is it a sign of that? We are offered no clues.
What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;
Try reading a history of financial crashes to dislodge this idea.
... even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more quickly and more
savagely.
This may or may not be true but here it is mere assertion.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
At this point I start to have real doubts as to whether Deborah Orr has actually read even
the Executive Summary of the Report this article is ostensibly a response to.
All the comments that follow about the need for public infrastructure, education,
regulated markets and so on are made as if they were a criticism of the IMF and yet the IMF
says many of those same things itself. The IMF position may, of course, be contradictory -
but then that is something that would need to be demonstrated. It seems that Deborah has not
got beyond reading a couple of Guardian articles on the issues she discusses and therefore is
in no position to do this.
Efforts are being made to narrow the skills gap with other countries in the region, as
the authorities look to take full advantage of Bangladesh's favorable demographics and help
create conditions for more labor-intensive led growth. The government is also scaling up
spending on education, science and technology, and information and communication
technology.
Which seems to be the sort of thing Deborah Orr is calling for. She should spend a little
time on the IMF website before criticising the institution. It is certainly one that merits
much criticism - but it needs to be informed.
And the solution to the problems? For Deborah Orr the response
... from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are certainly no leads on
this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray. And what a strange reference that is.
John Gray, in his usual cynical mode, dismisses the idea of progress being achieved by the
EU. But then I suppose that is consistent from a man who dismisses the idea of progress
itself.
... Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic.
The first step in serious political analysis is to understand that the people one opposes
are not crazy and are not devoid of logic. If that is not clearly understood then all that is
left is the confrontation of assertion and contrary assertion. Of course Conservative
neoliberalism has a logic. It is one I do not agree with but it is a logic all the same.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this [the need
for public investment and a recognition of the multiple roles that individuals have].
Wrong again.
It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a
market.
And again.
This stuff can't be made up as you go along on the basis of reading a couple of newspaper
articles. You actually have to do some hard reading to get to grip with the issues. I can see
no signs of that in this piece.
@NotAgainAgain - We are going off topic and that is in no small part down to my own fault, so
apologies. Just to pick up the point, I guess my unease with the likes of Buffet, Cooper-Hohn
or even the wealthy Guardian columnists is that they are criticizing the system from a
position of power and wealth.
So its easy to advocate change if you feel that you are in the vanguard of defining that
change i.e. the reforms you advocate may leave you worse off, but at a level you feel
comfortable with (the prime example always being Polly's deeply relaxed attitude to swingeing
income tax increases when her own lifestyle will be protected through wealth).
I guess I am a little skeptical because I either see it as managed decline, a smokescreen
or at worst mean spiritedness of people prepared to accept a reasonable degree of personal
pain if it means other people whom dislike suffer much greater pain.
"There is a clear legal basis in Germany for the workplace representation of employees in
all but the very smallest companies. Under the Works Constitution Act, first passed in 1952
and subsequently amended, most recently in 2001, a works council can be set up in all private
sector workplaces with at least five employees."
The UK needs to wake up to the fact that managers are sometimes inept or corrupt and will
destroy the companies they work for, unless their are adequate mechanisms to hold poor
management to account.
Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won
There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are
socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic
capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years.
I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy
of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain
infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy.
Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove, y'see.
@JamesValencia - Actually on reflection you are correct and I was wrong in my attack on the
author above. Having re-read the article its a critique of institutions rather than people so
my points were wide of the mark.
I still think that well heeled Guardian writers aren't really in a position to attack the
wealthy and politically connected, but I'll save that for a thread when they explicitly do
so, rather than the catch all genie of neoliberalism.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20
years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure
capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false
value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
If the pure market is a fantasy, how can deregulated capitalism have failed? Does one not
require the other? Surely it is regulated capitalism that has failed?
97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the
banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let
the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries.
The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than
the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's
Income.
@1nn1t - Some good points, there is a whole swathe of low earners that should not be in the
tax system at all, simply letting them keep the money in their pocket would be a start.
Second the minimum wage (especially in the SE) is too low and should be increased.
Obviously the devil is in the detail as to the precise rate, the other issue is non
compliance as there will be any number of businesses that try and get around this, through
employing people too ignorant or scared to know any better or for family businesses - do we
have the stomach to enforce this?
Thirdly there is a widespread reluctance to separate people from the largesse of the
state, even at absurd levels of income such as higher rate payers (witness child tax
credits). On the right they see themselves as having paid in and so are "entitled" to have
something back and on the left it ensures that everyone has a vested interest in a big state
dipping it hands into your pockets one day and giving you something back the next.
@Uncertainty - Which is why the people of the planet need to join hands.
The only group of people in he UK to see that need were the generation that faced WW2
together.
It's no accident that, joining up at 18 in 1939, they had almost all retired by 1984.
To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around
250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to
the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with
debt.
It is entrapment which impoverishes nations into the surrender of sovereignty,
democracy and national pride. In no way should we contribute to such economic immorality and
the entire economic system based on perpetual growth fuelled by consumerism and debt needs
top be denounced and dismantled. The adverse social and environmental consequence of
perpetual growth defies all sensible logic and in time, in a more responsible and enlightened
era, growth will be condemned.
"... Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs ..."
"... Don't you think a global recession and massive banking collapse should be classified as 'crash and burn'? ..."
"... It's one of the major contradictions of modern conservatism that the raw, winner-takes-all version of capitalism it champions actually undermines the sort of law abiding, settled communities it sees as the societal ideal. ..."
"... Rich people have benefited from this more than most: they need workers trained by a state-funded education system and kept healthy by a state-funded healthcare system; they depend on lending from banks rescued by the taxpayer; they rely on state-funded infrastructure and research, and – like all of us – on a society that does not collapse. Whether they like it or not, they would not have made their fortunes without the state spending billions of pounds ..."
"... You have to be careful when you take on the banksters. Abe Lincoln John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks. All came to a sticky end. No wonder politicians run scared of them. ..."
"... Now, that's a novel interpretation! The working people in "Communist" countries had free healthcare and education, guaranteed employment and heavily subsidized housing. The reason we have healtcare and free education is that working people in Capitalist countries would otherwise have revolted to have Socialism. In the absence of competition, there is no benefit for the Capitalist to be "beneficial". ..."
"... The banks could plainly see that they were stoking a bubble, but chose not to pass on the increased risk of lending to consumers by raising their interest rates and coolling the market. Why? Because they were making a handsome short-term profit. The banks put their own short-term interests above their long-term interests of financial stability. When the house of cards came tumbling down - we bailed them out. It was idiotic banks who failed to properly control their risk of lending that caused the crash, not interventionist politicians. ..."
Virtually everyone knows what went wrong, with the exception only of uncontrollable
ultra-right neoliberal buffs who try and put the blame on everyone else with various out and
out lies and deceptions, and they are thankfully petering and dying out by the day, including
deluded contributors to CiF, who seem to be positively and cruelly reveling in the suffering
their beloved thesis has and is causing.
So, now that we know the symptoms, what about the cure? The coalition want to make the poor
and vulnerable suffer even more than they have done over the last three decades or so while
still refusing to clamp down and wholly regulate the bankers, corporates and free markets, who
still hold too much power like the unions in the 70's,while Ed Miliband and 'One Nation
Labour' merely suggest in mild, diffident terms about financial regulation and a more balanced
economy, while still not wanting to upset those nice bankers too much.
It's time they were
upset though, and made to pay for their errors and recklessness; while they still award
themselves bonuses and take advantage of Gideon's recent tax cut, the poor and vulnerable who
were never responsible for the long recession now have money taken off them and struggle to
feed, pay bills and clothe themselves and their families, supported by the Daily Fail and co.
who look on them as scrounging, lazy, criminal, violent, drunken, drug addicted and promiscuous
sub-humans, who deserve their fate.
There's quite a few in the middle/professional classes
(many bankers) if they didn't know, but they don't bother with such, do they?
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes
I am not sure if this is true. We have the same economic system (broadly speaking,
capitalism) as nearly every country in the world, and the world economy is growing at a
reasonable rate, at around 3-4% for 2013-14 (see http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/c1.pdf
for more details).
We perceive a problem in (most of) Europe and North America because our economies are
growing more slowly than this, and in some cases not at all. The global growth figure comes
out healthy because of strong growth in the emerging countries, like China, Brazil and India,
who are narrowing the gap between their living standards and ours. So, the world as a whole
isn't broken, even if our bit of it is going through a rough patch.
This is pertinant to a discussion of Deborah Orr's article, because in it she calls for
global changes:
The response from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in
which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the
philosopher John Gray has said all along.
My point is: I don't think this argument will work, because I don't see why the emerging
countries would want wholesale change to what, for them, is quite a successful recipe, just
because it going down badly in Europe. Instead, European countries need to do whatever it
takes to fix their banking systems; but also learn to live within their means, and show some
more of the discipline and enterprise that made them wealthy in the first place.
@Uncertainty - I`m not defending philanthropy, i am saying in answer to some personal attacks
on Miss Orr below the line, that her status as either rich or poor is irrelevant, it is her
politics that count .
Tony Benn and Polly Toynbee both receive much abuse in this manner on Cif.
@kingcreosote - Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs
And yet the rest have more crumbs than under any other conceivable system. Look
at the difference that even limited market liberalisation has made to poverty in China. No loaf, no crumbs. You can always throw the loaf out of the window if you don't like the
inequality and then no-one can have anything.
@jazzdrum - I don't have much time for those rich who feel guilty about their greed and do
'charity' to salve their souls. Oh and get a Knighthood as a result.
The more honest giver is the person who gives of what little they have in their purse and
go without as a result. Not a tax dodge re-branded as philanthropy.
Also, such giving from the rich often has strings and may be tailored to what they think
are the 'deserving poor'. I don't like that either.
@Herbolzheim - It's one of the major contradictions of modern conservatism that the raw,
winner-takes-all version of capitalism it champions actually undermines the sort of law
abiding, settled communities it sees as the societal ideal.
More and more people are beginning to understand this as a fundamentally political problem (
ref. @XerXes1369). The 'left' prefers to concentrate on the role of a financial elite (which
is supposed to be exerting some kind of malign supernatural force on the state), to divert
attention from what mainstream 'left' poltics in this society has turned out to be.
When the state is taking over 60% of the income of even those on minimum wages we se
how, from the very top to the very bottom, that the state is the problem.
It's become a monster that will destroy us all.
I would query where you get these figures from, but where it not for the state, do you really
think that somebody on the minimum wage, keeping 100% of their wages, would be able to
afford, out of these wages, health care, schooling for their children, infrastructure
maintenance, their own police force and army, their own legal system?
This from an article in the Independent:
Rich people have benefited from this more than most: they need workers trained by a
state-funded education system and kept healthy by a state-funded healthcare system; they
depend on lending from banks rescued by the taxpayer; they rely on state-funded
infrastructure and research, and – like all of us – on a society that does not
collapse. Whether they like it or not, they would not have made their fortunes without the
state spending billions of pounds.
So the state, although not perfect benefit all of us, get over it!
You have to be careful when you take on the banksters.
Abe Lincoln John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the
issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks. All came to a sticky end. No wonder politicians run scared of them.
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
Yes they are state institutions and the tax system should be changed to prevent
Amazon et al from avoiding paying their fair share. But beneficial capitalism is not an
oxymoron, it is alive and present in virtually every corner of the world. Rather than accuse
me of not understanding, I think you would do well to take the beam out of your eye.
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves
with working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action.
Now, that's a novel interpretation! The working people in "Communist" countries had free
healthcare and education, guaranteed employment and heavily subsidized housing. The reason we have healtcare and free education is that working people in Capitalist
countries would otherwise have revolted to have Socialism. In the absence of competition, there is no benefit for the Capitalist to be
"beneficial".
The banks couldn't stop property hyperinflation, at 20% a year for well over a
decade.
The banks could plainly see that they were stoking a bubble, but chose not to pass on the
increased risk of lending to consumers by raising their interest rates and coolling the
market. Why? Because they were making a handsome short-term profit. The banks put their own
short-term interests above their long-term interests of financial stability. When the house
of cards came tumbling down - we bailed them out. It was idiotic banks who failed to properly
control their risk of lending that caused the crash, not interventionist politicians.
Last week there was a story where HSBC have taken on a senior ex-MI5 person to shore up
their money laundering 'problems'. They're being fined over a billion dollars by the fed
for taking blood money from murderers, drug dealers and corrupt politicians.
Not the Security Services' Director General by any chance?
-- In a filing to the Bermuda Stock Exchange ("BSX"), HSBC Holdings plc (Ticker:
HSBC.BH), announced the appointment of Sir Jonathan Evans to the Board of Directors.
The filing stated:
Sir Jonathan Evans (55) has been appointed a Director of HSBC Holdings plc with effect
from 6 August 2013. He will be an independent non-executive Director and a member of the
Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.
Sir Jonathan's career in the Security Service spanned 33 years, the last six of which as
Director General. During his career Sir Jonathan's experience included counter-espionage,
protection of classified information and the security of critical national infrastructure.
His main focus was, however, counter-terrorism, both international and domestic including,
increasingly, initiatives against cyber threats. As Director General he was a senior
advisor to the UK government on national security policy and attended the National Security
Council.
He was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2013 New Year's
Honours List and retired from the Service in April 2013.
I think there's some really good points in the article.
Last week there was a story where HSBC have taken on a senior ex-MI5 person to shore up
their money laundering 'problems'. They're being fined over a billion dollars by the fed for
taking blood money from murderers, drug dealers and corrupt politicians.
Their annual fee for this guy with 20 years experience to tackle a billion dollar fine and
the disfunction in their organisation? A lousy 100 k. Fee to UK for training him? 0.
Ridiculous! It should have been 10 times that for him and a finders fee of perhaps 10
million to the state.
Realistically, the state has NO clue about it's real value, or the real value of the UK
population. And the example above, I think, demonstrates banks' attitude to the global demand
that they clean up their act. We neef to take this lot to the cleaners before the stench gets
any worse.
Like bolshevism this secular regions is to a large extent is a denial of Christianity. While Bolshevism is closer to the Islam,
Neoliberalism is closer to Judaism.
The idea of " Homo economicus " -- a person who in all
his decisions is governed by self-interest and greed is bunk.
Notable quotes:
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. ..."
"... In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here. ..."
"... We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good at it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. ..."
"... It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism
is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice.
In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable
are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and
died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not. Neoliberalist policies have lifted
millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like
everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility
down, just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from, massive state intervention in markets
(QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality,
and makes the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and believed only by peasants happy
to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves.
It's an abhorrent cult that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in the hands
of the rich.
Why, you have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests
the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good
at it.
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers.
It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
How many alternative economic systems would you say have been given a fair trial under
reasonably favorable circumstances?
A good question. Answer: admittedly, not a huge number - but not none either. Feudalism
held sway in the middle ages and mercantilism in the 18th century, before both fell out of
fashion. In the 20th century Russia stuck with communism for 74 years, and many other
countries tried it for a while. At one time (around 1949-89) there were enough countries in
the communist block for us to be able to say that they at least had a fair chance to make it
work - that is, if it didn't work, they can't really blame it on the rest of the world
ganging up on them.
Lately, serious challengers to the global economic order have been more isolated
(Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea?) - so maybe you could argue that, if they are struggling, it is
because they have been unfairly ganged up on. But then again, aren't they pursuing a
version of socialism that has close affinities to that tried in the Soviet Union?
The problem with giving any novel political idea a really extended trial is that you have
to try it out on live human beings. This means that, once a critical mass of data has built
up that indicates a political idea doesn't work out as hoped, then people inevitably lose the
will to try that idea again.
So my question is: are critics of the current world economic order able to spell out
exactly how their proposed alternative would differ from Soviet-style socialism?
I'd tend to agree with you but in that case it's not an ideology, merely
pragmatism. The convergence of the parties merely reflects the wider consensus in society.
The alternative is simple but people have become so wedded to the libertarian parts of
liberal democracy that it will be some time before they are ready to contemplate the
alternative, a return to the Judaeo/Christian version of human rights - an absolute right to
God who made us, to the truth, to life, to a natural family, and to own the means of earning
a living - to which all should be entitled and all should be held to account.
These are rights that any sensible person will tell you that we should be entitled to but
believe it or not they are anathema to liberal democracy which is based on exploiting the
selfishness of the individual to the detriment of the common good and the good of society at
large.
This post is a variant of "fake prosperity" -- yet another neoliberal myth. Also known as
"rising tidelift all boats"
The improvement of the standard of living in 90th was mainly due to economic plunder of xUSSR
and Eastern Europe as well as well as communication revolution happening simultaneously. The
period from 1990 to 2000 is known as "Triumphal March of Neoliberalism". Aftger year 200
neoliberalism went into recession and in 2008 in deep crisis. The neoliberal ideology was dead by
2008.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
No, it was as recently as WW2 more or less. After that it followed a confusing
period where social and political freedoms darted ahead up to the '80s when the economic
freedoms started being championed by the right: Thatcher, Reagan, etc.
That saw a liberalisation of trade and an explosive growth in international trade with
huge benefits for the whole world: developing countries like the Asian dragons have seen
their standards of living skyrocket and practically they can't get up with the developed
countries in one generation. China, and India to an extent, is following on that path with
pretty good results.
As the same time the developed countries saw a huge improvement in their standard of
living with products and services available at incredible prices. Even the countries that did
not get on this yet are benefiting and the fact that starvation in the world is less of a
problem is the proof of that for example.
The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created
and distributed around the globe
But we know already how that is done: voluntary transactions among free agents.
That's called a free market and it is by far the most efficient way to produce wealth
humanity has ever known. Sure, we tried other methods (slavery, forced labour, communal
entities, government controlled economies, tribal economies, etc.) but nothing worked as well
as free markets.
The calls for governments' intervention in the economy is misguided and counterproductive.
They already extract about 50% of all wealth created in this country. That's way too much
since most of the money taken by governments is money diverted from productive use.
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That included
support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and free
investments.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
I take this opportunity to draw everyone's attention to a Finnish theorist and proponent
of liberal economical and political thinking, whose treatise on liberal national economy
preceded Adam Smith by 11 years: Anders Chydenius (1729-1803).
Margaret Thatcher left office 23 years ago. The de-regulation of the City occurred in
1986, 27 years ago. Since then UK GDP has more than doubled, inflation and unemployment are
far lower, and the numbers living in extreme poverty have fallen dramatically.
This is an attractive but idealistinc notion, because the person destiny often is shaped by
forces beyond his control. Like Great Depression or WWII. The proper idea is that the society as
a whole serves as a "social security" mechanism to prevent worst outcomes. At the same time
neoliberalism accept bailout for financial sector and even demand them for goverment.
@dmckm - Nobody is owed a good living in this world. That's what freedom means: one is free
to chose the best way to make a living. Are you saying that by forcing people to pay you
something they don't want to is freedom?
No market is 'Free'. Free markets do not exist. Markets are there for those with a vested
interest. i.e. the banksters. Note the growth of Hedge funds or slush funds for the rich.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism is based on brainwashing and propaganda. In this case by
bought by financial elite and controlled by intelligence agencies MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far. ..."
"... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ..."
"... A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power, it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the market isn't free. ..."
"... It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath. ..."
"... Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened. ..."
@taxhaven - I love this "free markets" expression, but can we really have free markets please
then? This means that no taxpayer money is to be spent to bail out the capitalist bankers
when things so sour.
It also means that there is completely free movement of labor so I as an employer should
be able to hire anyone I like for your job and pay the wage that the replacement is willing
to take i.e. tough luck to you if the person is more qualified and is willing to work for
less but does not have the work visa because in free markets there will be no such things as
work permits.
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi
armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections]
into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and
me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that
far.
The same names come up time and time again. One of them being, father of propaganda,
Edward Bernays.
Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring
about a "counterculture." In the opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:
".. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions
of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a
smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere
of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social
patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind..."[28]
Bernays' family background made him well suited to "control the public mind." He was the
double nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna,
and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays.
about being permitted to engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services with others,
unmolested.
And if we ever had that, would it make the ideal society?
A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power,
it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of
them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the
market isn't free.
It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's
anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested
interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath.
Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible
only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened.
@MysticFish - If these are completely different things, why has the austerity-stricken
tax-payer been co-opted into paying for events like Thatcher's funeral
How is that corporatism?
Bilderberg policing,
How is that corporatism?
corporate funded think-tanks are having their non-mandated corporatist policies
prioritized over government election pledges on policy?
Neo-liberalism and fascist corporatism are completely different things.
If these are completely different things, why has the austerity-stricken tax-payer been
co-opted into paying for events like Thatcher's funeral and Bilderberg policing, and why is
it that corporate funded think-tanks are having their non-mandated corporatist policies
prioritised over government election pledges on policy?
In reality this is mostly neocolonial way of dealing with countries. Allowing local oligarchy
to steal as much loaned by foreign states money as they can and converting the country into the
debt slave. Look at Greece and Ukraine for two prominent examples.
The position of OneCommentator is a typical position of defenders and propagandists
of neoliberalism
IMF is part of "Washington Consensus" with the direct goal of converting countries into debt slaves of industrialized
West. It did not work well with Acia counties, but it is great success in some countries in Europe and most of Africa and Latin
America (with Argentina as the most recent example)
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom..
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That
included support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and
free investments. It used to be that liberals were practically unpopular with right wing
(traditional conservative for example) parties but more or less on the same side as left wing
parties, mainly because of their social positions. More recently the left wing parties became
more and more unhappy with the economic freedoms promoted by liberals while the right wing
parties embraced both the economic and social freedoms to a certain degree.
So, the leftists
found themselves in a bind practically having reversed roles which the the conservatives as
far as support for liberalism goes. So, typically, they're using propaganda to cover their
current reactionary tendencies and coins a new name for liberals: neoliberals which, they
say, are not the same as liberals (who are their friends since liberal means freedom lover
and they like to use that word a lot).
"austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it.
Austerity is caused by incompetent governments unable to balance their budgets.
They had 60 years to do it properly after ww2 and the reconstruction that followed but many
of them never did it. So now it is very simple: governments ran out of money and nobody wants
to lend them more. That's it, they hit the wall and there is nothing left on the bottom if
the purse.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Developed countries like Greece are supposed to run
more or less balanced budgets over longer periods. Sure, they need to borrow money on a
regular basis and may that is supposed to be done by issuing bonds or other forms of
government debt that investors buy on the open market. For such governments the IMF is
supposed to just fill in in a minor way not to provide the bulk of all the loans needed on a
temporary basis. Because of incompetent governments Greece is practically bankrupt hence it
is not going to be able to pay back most of the existing debts and definitely not newer
debts. So practically the IMF is not, ending money to them, it is giving them the money. So,
I would say that they have a good reason to wag its finger.
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year – when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard – leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end
until a major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot
be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters
having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so
as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums
and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while
possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true – using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your
answers in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on
Saturday night!
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
@outragedofacton - You have to be careful when you take on the banksters.
Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the
issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks.
I hadn't realised the John WIlkes Booth and Lee Harey Oswald were bankers.
But I do always enjoy the scenes in Saving Private Ryan when thousands of
heavily-armed Goldman Sachs employees land on Omaha beach.
While he is not a central banker, I heard that
Lloyd Blankfein used to fly in Las Vegas on weekends and gamble in casino, as week was not enough for him
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies -- while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year -- when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard -- leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end until a
major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and
cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their
charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot
depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that
their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies --
while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true -- using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your answers
in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on Saturday
night!
Still it is surprising that they have gone so quickly from their stated position at the
start of the republic of a rejection of kings and emperors to their position now of
corruption so ingrained it is impossible to make distinctions.
Too right, I've spat my tea every time I hear some non-Brit brag of their
freedom from royal tyranny. They are blissfully unaware they have created/inherited such in
all but name. Fat Cat Bastard or Henry the Eighth, try to spot the difference in style or
attitude.
"... I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. ..."
Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies
The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its
production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6
mouthpiece
Luke Harding of the Guardian.
Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian,
this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified "Russians" to
the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that
Manafort's plea deal was over.
The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor
logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these "Russians" are in the visitor logs.
This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict
Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure
was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was
accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log.
Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained
until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.
There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the "Russians" would
have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so
exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed
Ecuadorean "intelligence report" of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean
government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is
impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security –
would not know the identity of these alleged "Russians".
Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government
regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they
follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller's
pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the
Presidency.
My friend William Binney, probably the world's greatest expert on electronic surveillance,
former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that
it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a
download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting
a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at
the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC "security consultants"
Crowdstrike.
I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be
established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive "Big
Lie" will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack
of the DNC servers.
Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even
considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a
personal assurance of them.
I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York
Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security
services.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a
particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to
create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the
US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the
security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange's support prior to expelling
him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of
espionage.
Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and
has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever
be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York
Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are
seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the
"liberal media" no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of
the people, they are an instrument of elite control.
My opinions are conflicted, but I'd rather give Assange a Nobel Peace Prize than a criminal
conviction. He definitely deserves a Nobel Prize more than Obama. I was in an eatery in
Cambridge, MA, when I heard Obama's prize announced, and even there people where aghast and
astounded.
The Guardian was bought by Soros, a few years ago.
Washpost, NYT and CNN, Deep State mouthpieces.
That the USA, as long as Deep State has not been eradicated completely from USA society, will
continue to try to get Assange, and of course also Snowdon, in it claws, is more than
obvious.
So what are we talking about ?
Assange just uses the freedom of information act, or how the the USA euphemism for telling
them nothing, is called.
How Assange survives, mentally and bodily, being locked up in a small room without a
bathroom, for several years now, is beyond my comprehension.
But of course, for 'traitors' like him human rights do not exist.
"I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times
have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services."
These outfits are largely state-run at this point. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff
Bezos, a man with deep ties to the CIA through his Amazon company (which depends upon federal
subsidies and has received security agency "support") and the Guardian is clandestinely
funded through UK government purchases, among other things. MI6 has also effectively
compromised the former integrity and objectivity of that outlet by threatening them with
prosecutions for revealing MI6 spy practices. And the NYT has always been state-run. See
their coverage of the Iraq War. The Israelis have bragged about having an asset at the Times.
The American government has several.
It's amazing to see the obvious progression of the lies as they take hold in an anti-Trump
elite who seem completely impervious to understanding his victory over Clinton. All these
people who claim to be so cosmopolitan and educated seem to think Assange or Manafort would
have any interest in meeting each other. (Let alone in the company of unspecified
'Russians'.)
At first it was that Assange was wrong to publish the DNC leaks because it hurt Clinton
and thus helped Trump.
Then it was that Assange was actively trying to help Trump.
Now it's that Assange is in collusion with Trump and the 'Russians'.
The same thing happened with the Trump-Russian nonsense which goes ever more absurd as
time goes on. Slowly boiling the frog in the public's mind. The allegations are so
nonsensical, yet there are plenty of educated, supposedly cosmopolitan people who don't
understand the backgrounds or motives of their 'liberal' heroes in the NYT or Guardian who
believe this on faith.
None of these people will ever question how if any of this is true how the security
services of the West didn't know it and if they supposedly know it, how come they aren't
acting like it's true. They are acting like they're attempting to smear politicians they
don't like, however.
Luke Harding is particularly despicable. He made his name as a journalist off privileged
access to Wilkileaks docs, and has been persistently attacking Assange ever since the Swedish
fan-girl farce.
Assange did make a mistake (of which I am sure he is all too aware now) in the choice to,
rather than leave the info. open on-line, collaborate with the filthy Guardian, the sleazy
NYT, and I forget dirty name of the third publication.
@anon Since you
are posting as Anon coward, I am not expecting a reply, but would be interested in (and would
not doubt) state funding of the 'Guardian'?
As for the NYT, they are plainly in some sense state-funded, but the state in question is
neither New York nor the U.S.A., but the state of Israel.
@Che Guava
Perhaps he is referring to the sheer volume of ads the British government places for public
sector appointments. As for the paper edition, most of it seems to be bought by the BBC!
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a clandestine operation run by intelligence units. ..."
"... Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence Act of 1917. ..."
"... Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917 unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ( US. Constitution, Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them. ..."
"... It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers. ..."
"... This story only scratches the surface on the extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic. Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to both sides of the aisle. ..."
"... It's no secret that the CIA and State Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations, well, consider this your wake-up call. ..."
"... "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby - Former CIA Director ..."
"... "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director 1981 ..."
"... While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the "virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), ..."
"... the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for everyone ..."
...this is the norm not the exception. It's also representative of a very significant cross
section of the State Department/CIA/Pentagon/DC Beaurcratic Machine, made up of various
Leftists, Statists, academia, and privileged youth with political science degrees from east
coast/DC/Ivy League schools.
I am having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around this story.....we have an alleged
CIA spokesperson purportedly attempting to engage in damage control with a prominent national
newspaper regarding the flow of information between the CIA and film-makers doing a story on
the Bin Laden raid. Ostensibly, the information provided, regarding the raid, was to help
secure the President's reelection bid?
I note that the logo on the phone of the published photo of CIA spokesperson Marie Harf
looks remarkably similar, if not identical, to the Obama campaign logo. A "Twitter" account
profile for M's. Harf references that she is a "National Security Wonk at OFA...." . Could
the "OFA" she makes reference to possibly be "Obama for America"? Her recent tweet history
includes commentaries critical of Romney and his supporters, which appear to be in response
to her observations while watching Republican Convention coverage.
My understanding heretofore was that those engaged in the Intelligence Community,
particularly spokespersons, preferred to keep a low profile and at least appear apolitical.
Based upon the facts as presented, one must reexamine whether a US intelligence agency is
engaging in the most blatant form political partisanship to unduly influence a US
Presidential election.
You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for
spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty
four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such
information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news
groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a
clandestine operation run by intelligence units.
I'm surprised by the pettiness of it all. And it's this pettiness that makes me think that
such data exchange is not only routine, but an accepted way to enhance a career. After all, who really cares what Dowd writes? I
believe Chomsky called her 'kinda a gossip columnist'. And, that's what she is.
That anyone
would bother passing her column to the CIA is, on the face of it, a little absurd. I don't
say she is a bad columnist, she's probably quite good, but hardly of interest to the CIA,
even when she is writing about the CIA. So basically, someone passed her column along,
because this is normal, and the more ambitious understand that this is how you 'get along'.
This kind of careerism is something I see, on some level, every day: the ambitious see the
rules of the game, and follow them, and the rationale comes later. For most of us, this
doesn't involve the security services. However, the principle that the MSM is, at the least,
heavily influenced by state power is fairly well understood by now in more critical circles:
all forms of media are subject to unusual and particular state pressures, due to their
central import in propaganda and mass-persuasion. The NYT is, in short, an obvious target for
this kind of influencing. And as such should really know much much better.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that most of what I read, or see on the nightly
broadcasts, is essentially bullshit. I could switch to RT, and in a way its counter-point
would be useful in stimulating my own critical thinking, but much of what RT broadcasts is
also likely to be bullshit. We have a world of competing propaganda memes where nobody knows
the truth. It's like we are all spooks now, each and every one of us. An excellent article,
again.
Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence
Act of 1917.
Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917
unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press" ( US. Constitution,
Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the
Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than
having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its
constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them.
Excellent article, but it's not necessarily a surprise to see a reporter who has developed a
relationship with his source do that source a favor in hopes that the favor will some day be
returned with greater access.
It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in
how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the
flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers.
This story only scratches the surface on the
extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The
loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media
outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has
become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic.
Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to
both sides of the aisle.
What the commoners fail to understand is that the Public Relations (PR) industry controls 75%
of the information that you are fed from major media outlets. It's an industry that has
artfully masked everything you thought you knew. It's no secret that the CIA and State
Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than
propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of
employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations,
well, consider this your wake-up call.
Glenn, thanks for illuminating the insidious, dangerous cynicism pervading American media
& culture, which have become so inured to hypocrisy, corruption & desecration of
sacrosanct democratic values & institutions that has been crucial to the normalization of
formerly intolerable practices, laws & policies eating away at the foundations of our
constitutional democracy. The collective moral, principled "lines in the sand" protecting us
from authoritarian pressures are steadily being washed away, compromised, thanks to media
obsequious complicity.
While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government
and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the
"virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), and all
the "checks & balances" enshrined in our constitution after 9/11 (e.g. deferential
judiciary, bi-partisan Congressional consensus on increasingly authoritarian, secretive US
executive, propagandistic media, etc.). At least that's my thinking, and I see no significant
countervailing pressure capable of slowing- let alone reversing- this authoritarian
re-ordering of our constitutional order & political culture, though a few exceptions
exist (e.g. Judge Forrest's suprising courage to suspend NDAA provision 1021), and rare
journalists like yourself.
One astounding example of this widespread cynicism facilitating this authoritarian trend,
was the media's rather restrained response to the revelation that elements in the massive
Terrorist/Military Industrial Complex (HBGary) had been plotting military-style
social-engineering operations to discredit & silence progressive journalists,
specifically naming YOU, who I see as one of the rare defenders of the
constitutional/democratic "lines in the sand" under relentless attack. Where was the
overwhelming collective shock & outrage, or media demanding criminal investigations into
US taxpayer-funded attacks on our so-called "free press?"
My question for Glenn, is whether he thinks it would be possible for him to get legal
standing to sue the private (& US??) entities, which proposed the covert
discrediting/repression operations targeting you specifically?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the documents published by Anonymous, reveal actions
constituting criminal conspiracy. Given the proposed methods included forms of
politically-motivated military warfare & coercion, the guilty parties would likely be
aggressively investigated and charged with some terrorist crimes, if they had been busted
planning attacks on people/entities that trumpeted Obama administration policies or its
corporate backers (i.e. if they were Anonymous). The HBGary proposal to discredit/silence
Wikileaks defenders strongly indicated they had experience with- & confidence in- such
covert operations. Requiring a journalist/academic to be covertly
discredited/destroyed/silenced before they get legal standing would be as absurd as the Obama
administration's argument that Chris Hedges & Co. plaintiffs lack standing because they
hadn't yet been stripped of their rights & secretly indefinitately detained without
charges or trial.
I thought you might be in the unique position to use the US courts to pry open & shine
some light upon the clearly anti-democratic, authoritarian abuses of power, & virtual
fusion of corporate & state powers, which you so eloquently write about.
I glad that foreign journalism is available for me to read our the internet, it's the only
way i can find truthful information about what's going on in my own country (USA). I've known the liberal media bias was a problem for a long time, but articles like this
continually remind me that things are far worse than they appear.
All the actions surrounding the NY Times and the CIA on this issue are atrocious. With this
type of "journalistic independence", why am I paying for a Times account??
As a favor to all readers, following is a summation of all past, present, and future ideas as
articulated by the Fortune Cookie Thinker, John Andersson:
A certain amount of genocide is good because the world is overpopulated.
You should never question authority; after all, you are not an expert on authority.
Everyone wins when we kill terrorists; the more we kill, the more we generate, thus the
more we kill again, which makes us win more.
It is not possible to have absolute power; therefore, power does not corrupt.
Drones kill bad people. Only bad people are killed by drones. Thus, drones are good. We
should have more drones. That is all.
I secretly think he's the real "Jack Handy" from the Deep Thoughts series on SNL.
In my high school history class in 1968 I learned all about how newspapers printed propaganda
stories before WWI and Spanish American war in order to influence the public so they would
want to go to war and it was called "yellow journalism". I also had an English teacher that
taught us about "marketing" and how they use visuals and printed words and film to make us
want to buy a product. My father taught me to NOT BELEIVE everything you read. Now it is
called "critical thinking" and has been added as a general education class in college that
you have to take for a college degree. Critical thinking about what you read and see and hear
should be taught as early as 10 year olds so people can think for themselves. I do not read
main stream newspapers in America but read news sites all over the world.
THANK GOD FOR THE
INTERNET THAT YOU CAN READ WHAT OTHER NEWSPAPERS. I discovered Glenn on Democracy Now and
they are my go to place to read about what is really happening.
the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA
is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for
everyone
"... We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers. ..."
"... In what is turning out to be the CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard operating procedures. ..."
"... Or Afghanistan. Many of the cruise missile libs supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. ..."
"... The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy. ..."
"... And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets. ..."
If we thought the public trust in journalism is low, then this news only pushes it down further. Do people in journalism care?
Some do very much but for the most the media and the power-holders are in collusion.
We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking
scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy
and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers.
The critical articles are nothing more than smokescreens. We are led to believe how hard-hitting the newspapers are and how
they hold the politicians and other power-brokers to fire. All hogwash. It is better we recognize that the citizens are merely
props they need to claim legitimacy.
Not till this moment did I realize that we are under siege. I thought Julian Assange was the one under siege but he was just trying
to offer us a path to freedom. With Assange neutralized and The New York Times and its brethren by all appearances thoroughly
compromised, how can any one of us stand for all of us against government malfeasance let alone tyranny?
Where would you go if you had dispositive proof of devastating government malfeasance? In what is turning out to be the
CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard
operating procedures.
It would actually be foolish to take evidence of horrific government behavior to the titular head of the government {who'd
likely persecute you as a whistleblower} or the major news organizations supposedly reporting to us about it {they'd bring it
right back to the government for guidance on what to do}.
Without safe and reliable ways to stand and speak for and to each other on a large scale about the foul deeds of our government,
we are damned to live very lonely vulnerable lives at the mercy of an unrestrained government.
Excerpt from script of Three Days of the Condor --
Higgins: I can't let you stay out, Turner.
Turner slowly stops, leans back against a building, shakes his head sadly.
Turner: Go home, Higgins. They have it all.
Higgins: What are you talking about?
Turner: Don't you know where we are?
Higgins looks around. The huge newspaper trucks are moving out.
Turner: It's where they ship from.
Higgins' head darts upward and he reads the legend above Turner's head. THE NEW YORK TIMES. He is stunned.
Higgins: You dumb son of a bitch.
Turner: It's been done. They have it.
Higgins: You've done more damage than you know.
Turner: I hope so.
Higgins: You want to rip us to pieces, but you damn fool you rely on us. {then} You're about to be a very lonely man,
Turner.
***
Higgins: It didn't have to turn out like this.
Turner: Of course it did.
Higgins: {calling out as they depart separate ways} Turner! How do you know they'll print it?
Turner stops. Stares at Higgins. Higgins smiles.
Higgins: You can take a walk. But how far? If they don't print it.
Several commenters have pointed out that the NYT does do "good" journalism. That is true. It is also true that they tell
absolute lies. See Judith Miller. The best way to sell a lie is to wrap it in the truth.
I know it's late in the comments thread by the time anyone bothers to read THIS minor contribution, but I think it worth mentioning
how this article from Glenn proves just how important are outlets like Democracy Now, RT, Cenk Uyger, Dylan Ratigan, et al. You
really have to turn away from the mainstream media as a source of anything. Far too compromised, by both their embeddedness with
the government, and their for-profit coroporate owners.
Note CNN's terrible ratings problems as of late, and the recent news that they are considering turning to more reality-type
shows to get the eyeballs back. If that isn't proof positive of the current value of corporate news, I don't know what is.
DemocracyNow.org. I think I'm going to donate to them today....
i'm do not understand why so many people are against authority in general, even when the legal & enforcement system is there
to protect your property, life and rights. i understand when corruption exists, it should be seriously addressed, but why throw
out a whole system that is "somewhat working"? why blindly call for revolution?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness."
This is a political officer acting as editor of a major newspaper. I agree this has been going on for some time. Here is my analysis
of that. The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine
agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with
some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy.
Romney and Obama are functionaries. They do as they're told. Obama is the more useful of the two as fewer people seem able
to look honestly at his policies. They will not oppose Obama for doing the same things and worse as Bush. It is why all stops
are being pulled out to get him, rather than Romney elected. The policies will be the same but the reaction of our population
to each man is vastly different.
So yes, the capture of the media has been going on for quite some time. It appears nearly consolidated at this time. Instead
of using this as a reason to ignore the situation, it is more important than ever to speak out. History is helpful in learning
how to confront injustice. It is not a reason, as I see many use it, to say; "well it's always been that way, so what?" In history,
we learn about corruption but we also learn that people opposed corruption. Is there some reason why we cannot also oppose corruption
right now?
I though Michael Wolff's recent analysis of Apple (here in the Guardian) was in many ways metaphorical for Western leadership,
his article acting in some ways to explain the behavior we see in cultural "elites."
Worth the read.
And somehow, after reading this article, all I can think of is the Wizard of Oz and a dancing midget army singing in
repetitive, high-pitched tones.
And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets.
Who will be the first commenter to leave the classic devastating critique: "The author fails to present a balanced view, showing
only one side. The author's argument has no substance and is not really worth anything."
Don't forget this one: "The author just complains and complains without ever offering a solution or a better approach."
Also, can anyone 'splain me how to do a "response"?
"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific
example of a story he broke after doing that?"
Our Men in Iran?
"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the
D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence
official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised
the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been
privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in
Nevada
His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My
Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about
it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the
general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are
others.
So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the
interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these
organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his
privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to
contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.
Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less
for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux
cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I
can understand that it exists.
Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of
acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical
critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such
organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be
reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're
structured, and who they answer to.
That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.
"... Here's a wonderful example of the NYT's propensity for re-writing history: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/30/ny-times-scrubs-mention-cia-arming-syrian-rebels-177311/ Long live the memory hole. ..."
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence Victor Marchetti
"It is the first book the federal government of the United States ever went to court to
censor before its publication. The CIA demanded the authors remove 399 passages but they
stood firm and only 168 passages were censored. The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, chose to
publish the book with blanks for censored passages and with boldface type for passages that
were challenged but later uncensored."
There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of
intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government.
Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers
of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important
public influence -- the academic world and the communications media.
The cult of
intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy.
The purpose of
the cult is to further the foreign policies of the U.S. government by covert and usually
illegal means, while at the same time containing the spread of its avowed enemy, communism.
Traditionally, the cult's hope has been to foster a world order in which America would
reign supreme, the unchallenged international leader.
Today, however, that dream stands
tarnished by time and frequent failures. Thus, the cult's objectives are now less
grandiose, but no less disturbing. It seeks largely to advance America's self-appointed
role as the dominant arbiter of social, economic, and political change in the awakening
regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And its worldwide war against communism has to
some extent been reduced to a covert struggle to maintain a self-serving stability in the
Third World, using whatever clandestine methods are available.
"... "clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems." ..."
"... The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak. ..."
"... The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone. ..."
A network exposed by leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at
curbing "Russian propaganda" has confirmed receiving money from the British government, while
Anonymous has denied on Twitter that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a
network claiming to fight disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II
documents, which purports to show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals
cooperating with it, has been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous
collective. A major Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak.
Responding to the leak on Monday, the organization
said it did indeed receive funding from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
for the past two years, but insisted that private donors were its primary source of money.
The statement neither confirmed nor denied that the documents were genuine, saying that it
didn't have time to validate them yet. But it said it was "clear that much of the material
was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems."
It claimed that many of the published documents were "dated and never used," and
that many of the individuals listed as members of II "clusters of influencers" were
never contacted by the program.
The documents not confirmed. However:
1. Their detail suggests they may be genuine
2. Nobody with knowledge has denied they're genuine
3. Some of those named have confirmed their association
4. Wkileaks hasn't evidenced its concerns
5. A history of some Wiki & Anonymous animosity
The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged
agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti contacted the FCO for comment about the disclosure, but its
representative said that information about the II was "already in the public domain,"
and that the British diplomatic service was "happy for the project to receive greater
exposure."
Interesting to watch Westerners picking up the Kremlin propaganda line that standing up to
Putin's lying, thieving, murdering regime is 'anti Russian'. Putin and his enablers and
appeasers are the true 'Russophobes'.
The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation
to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in
exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost
£1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone.
RT, which reported on the leak last Friday, asked a number of alleged participants in the II
program about their contribution. The majority of these have not yet replied, except for
journalist Edward Lucas and Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council Stephen
Blank.
It's been amusing to watch Putin sympathisers in the West who claim to be so adept at
seeing through 'government lies' and 'MSM bias' uncritically swallow and regurgitate the
version of events spread by Kremlin propaganda outlets that are known to relentlessly lie and
distort.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
Vesti News
Published on 26 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
On Monday, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office announced the initiation of a new criminal case against William Browder,
an international schemer and fraudster. Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia.
For many years, Browder has been making frantic efforts to avoid going to Russian prison.
Well, lucky for him Interpol can't come after him, now that he almost singlehandedly
prevented a Russian from becoming Director. He's only Assistant Director, so he must be
powerless.
There; you see? The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder. If you want to rub
someone out, don't use a distinctive nerve agent that everyone will know came from Russia,
you numbskulls. Try to make it something undetectable, but if you can't manage that, at least
make it something so general it might have come from anywhere. Then immediately announce that
Browder did it.
@ABasu - My comment was not in direct agreement with the article, it was a critique of the
first comment above.
I won't even begin with the welfare debate in which you somehow think that 'welfare' and
its relatively recent introduction is somehow anti neo-liberal because that is nothing other
than newspeak...
The point I was making (with perhaps a less than perfect example) is that language is
political and therefore it matters greatly what we call things.
"... And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker is either losing money or losing their job? ..."
"... the monetisation of everything and the use of language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the norm, but the only way. ..."
"... Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of 'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious 'elite'. ..."
"... I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's being said. ..."
And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management
speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker
is either losing money or losing their job? Or some manager is about to award themselves
a bonus?
@gyges1 - No, she is surely railing against the monetisation of everything and the use of
language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the
norm, but the only way.
Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit
claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of
'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious
'elite'.
Language matters and its distortion is a political act.
But without these Exciting New Word Uprating Initiatives, we can never win The Global Race...
or something.
I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's
Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered
precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal
Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings
become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's
being said.
(By the way, the link's to Amazon, but, obviously, you may find you have a better
"Customer Experience" if you get from somewhere less tax-dodgy.)
Quite. Language is the first victim of any hegemonic project. Examples abound in communism,
fascism and neoliberalism. There's nothing to argue with in this article yet, unsurprisingly,
the usual swivel-eyed brigade seem to have popped up. Perhaps your discussion of work strays
a little too close to philosophy for the unthinking. I don't know why I'm disheartened by
some of the responses, as the same voices appear btl in almost ever CIF article, but I am
somehow. Perhaps because the point of the article - the hijacking of language - is so
obviously true as to be uncontroversial to any but the ideologically purblind, yet still....
@thesingingdetective - what is an insurance policy other than a financial product where in
return for payments over a period of time a claim can be made in certain circumstances?
If anything, particularly given that the link between contributions and claims is now
nugatory, describing welfare as welfare is much more honest and much less "neoliberal". It is
a set of payments and entitlements society has agreed upon to ensure a level of welfare for
all rather than an insurance policy which each individual may claim against if they've kept
up their payments.
If an anti-neo-liberal, supportive of the article can get this so back to front, perhaps
the "debate" being posited is an empty one about language.
If you changed a few words from the Communist Manifesto, it could easily be about
neo-liberalism and leftist attitudes towards it.
"A spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre of neo-liberalism. All the leftists of old
Europe have entered into a Holy Alliance to exorcise this spectre; Toynbee and Loach;
Redgrave and Harris.
Where is the party in power that has not been decried as neo-liberalistic by its leftist
opponents on the sidelines?"
Take FE as a case study on how the coin counters have taken over the world.
Back in the dark ages of the 1980s, the maths department had 7 lecturers (2 part time) and
two people to look after the admin - there was also the Department Head (who was a lecturer)
and a Head of School. They had targets, loosely defined, but it was a rare year when there
wasn't a smattering of A grades at A level...
Then along came the coin counters, the target setters, with their management degrees and
swivel eyed certainty that 'greed is good... competition! competition! competition!' and with
them came the new professionals into the department... the 'Quality Manager'... the
'Curriculum Manager' the 'Exams Manager' the 'Deputy Exams Manager'... and the paperwork
increased to feed the beast that counts everything but knows nothing... and targets were
set.... 'Targets! Targets! Targets!... and we were all sent in search of excellence... 'teach
to the exam' 'We must meet our targets'... 'we won't use exam board 'A' because they're
tough' and the exam boards reacted to their own target culture by all simplifying. The
universities began to notice the standard of 'A' grade students (who increased) was
equivelant to a C grade of 5 years ago. However, targets were being met (on paper) quality
was maintained (on paper) we were improving year on year (on paper). However, what was going
on in the real world is that our students were being sold a pup - their level of competence
and of knowledge was very much inferior to their same grade fore bearers of just 5 years
previous
Eventually, the department became 1 full time lecturer and 4 on 'zero hour contracts' and
the Head of School became 'Chief Executive' the 'Head of Department' became 'Department
Manager' and a gap developed between those who taught and those who 'managed'... not just a
culture gap... a bloody big pay gap...
Who benefited from all this marketisation?
Not the lecturers... not the students... not the universities... not industry...not the
economy...
Who benefited? Work it out for yourselves (as I used to tell my students)
@roachclip - I am familiar with the numerous wiki sites including Wikipedia, thank you very
much. If you read the article yourself you would see it supports my point of view here.
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic
vocabulary, for instance that bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure
– terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an
action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive
outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
This is absolute nonsense...the terms "investment" and "expenditure" carry no moral
connotations that I can determine. Does the author accept that we need to have terms to
express each of these concepts? Perhaps she would like to come up with some alternative
suggestions for the notions of "contributing money" and "spending money"?
Seconded, its uses and abuses of the English Language second only that of the Church. A
fitting comparison in my book because they both have much in common. Both are well aware that
it is through language and the control of which that true cultural change is achieved.
Both know that this new language must be propagated as far and as wide as possible, with
saturation coverage. Control of information is a a must, people must see and they must know
only things of your choosing.
For example, back in the 4th Century AD (which is incidentally an abbreviation of the Latin
'Anno Domini', which means 'in the year of our Lord'), the church became centralised and
established under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Part of this centralising
mission was the creation of a uniform belief system. Those that 'chose' to believe something
else were branded 'heretics'. The word 'heresy' coming from the Greek
'αἵρεσις' for 'choice'. Thus to choose to have your
own opinions was therefore deemed to be a bad thing.
As a quick aside, 'Pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus' which means 'rural dweller'. I.e.
those beyond the remit of the urban Christian elites. 'Heathen' on the other hand is Old
English (hæðen). It simply means 'not Christian or Jewish.
When you have complete control over the flow of information, as the Church did by the 5th
Century, then you can write practically anything. This doesn't mean just writing good things
about yourself and bad things about your enemies. Rather it means that you can frame the
debate anyway you wish.
In modern times, I would argue that you can see similar things happen here. As the author
suggests, terms like 'Wealth Creator', 'Scrounger', 'Sponger', 'living on welfare', 'Growth',
'progress' and my personal favourite, 'reform', take on a whole new meaning.
Their definition of the word 'reform' and what we would see it to mean are two totally
different things, Yet since it is they that has access to the wider world and not us, then it
is their definition that gets heard. The same could be said for all the other words and their
latter day connotations.
Thus when you hear the news and you hear what passes for debate, you hear things on their
terms. Using their language with their meanings. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private
property rights, free markets, and free trade.
You'll notice I've highlighted the word freedoms. Freedom is a word they hijacked right
from the start of the process and how they hijacked the Republican party in the USA.
For any way of thought to become dominant, a conceptual apparatus has to be advanced that
appeals to our intuitions and instincts, to our values and our desires, as well as to the
possibilities inherent in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual
apparatus becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to
question. The founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human
dignity and individual freedom as fundamental.
Concepts of dignity and individual freedom are powerful and appealing in their own right.
Such ideals empowered the dissident movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before
the end of the Cold War as well as the students in Tiananmen Square. The student movements
that swept the world in 1968––from Paris and Chicago to Bangkok and Mexico
City––were in part animated by the quest for greater freedoms of speech and of
personal choice.
More generally, these ideals appeal to anyone who values the ability to make decisions for
themselves.
The idea of freedom, long embedded in the US tradition, has played a conspicuous role in
the US in recent years. '9/11' was immediately interpreted by many as an attack on it. 'A
peaceful world of growing freedom', wrote President Bush on the first anniversary of
that awful day, 'serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals
and unites America's allies.' 'Humanity', he concluded, 'holds in its hands the opportunity
to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes', and 'the United States welcomes its
responsibilities to lead in this great mission'. This language was incorporated into the US
National Defense Strategy document issued shortly thereafter. 'Freedom is the Almighty's gift
to every man and woman in this world', he later said, adding that 'as the greatest power on
earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom'.
When all of the other reasons for engaging in a pre-emptive war against Iraq were proven
wanting, the president appealed to the idea that the freedom conferred on Iraq was in and of
itself an adequate justification for the war. The Iraqis were free, and that was all
that really mattered. But what sort of 'freedom' is envisaged here, since, as the cultural
critic Matthew Arnold long ago thoughtfully observed, 'freedom is a very good horse to ride,
but to
ride somewhere'.To what destination, then, are the Iraqi people expected to ride the horse of
freedom donated to them by force of arms?
As Hayek quoted....
Planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom. Free
enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essentials of freedom.
No society built on other foundations is said to deserve to be called free.
The freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom; the justice, liberty and
welfare it offers are decried as a camouflage of slavery.
The Neoliberal idea of freedom 'thus degenerates into a mere advocacy of free
enterprise. It helps explain why neoliberalism has turned so authoritarian, forceful, and
anti-democratic at the very moment when 'humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes'. It makes us focus on how so many
corporations have profiteered from withholding the benefits of their
technologies, famine, and environmental disaster. It raises the worry as to whether or not
many of these calamities or
near calamities (arms races and the need to confront both real and
imagined enemies) have been secretly engineered for corporate advantage.
Political slogans can be invoked that mask specific strategies beneath vague
rhetorical devices. The word 'freedom' resonates so widely within the common-sense
understanding of Americans that it becomes 'a button that elites can press to open the door
to the masses' to justify almost anything.
Appeals to traditions and cultural values bulked large in all of this. An open project
around the restoration of economic power to a small elite would probably not gain much
popular support. But a programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms could
appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore class power.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
@gyges1 - The idea of language is very important in the production of a way of thinking which
closes down other alternatives and futures. One which leaves neoliberal globalisation as 'the
only game in town'.
I worry that the very term 'neoliberalism' is one not used by the political classes and
much of the media, I don't think I've ever heard the world 'neoliberalism' used on the
BBC.
This unwillingness to even call a spade a spade has political consequences . For
example, I had an online discussion with someone over Thatchers death a little while ago. He
called me 'comrade' and then questioned the very existence of the term Neo-liberalism. At the
time I thought this was a bit of a cheap shot, but if you can quite cheerfully label someone
a 'socialist' and then refuse to accept that neo-liberalism exists, you are well on your way
to making people believe that the current set of social relations are indeed completely
normal and that there are few, if any, alternative ways of rewiring the world which can
create a better world.
"... I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina. ..."
"... The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor? ..."
"... It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home. ..."
"... The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it. ..."
"... We have become so embedded in the language of individuals, choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy" and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest. If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive. ..."
@finnkn - Apologies. I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant
and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared
in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina.
The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored
by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu;
paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism
was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor?
To be clear: I am arguing that the direct effects of 'actually existing neoliberalism' are very far from benign. I do not argue
that the militarisation of Central and South America are the direct consequence neoliberal theory.
@finnkn - Well I think many would. It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored
military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation
as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home.
Neoliberalism was first practiced in authoritarian states; the states in which neoliberalism is most deeply embedded are (surprise,
surprise) increasingly authoritarian, and neoliberalism solutions are regularly imposed on client/vulnerable states by suprastructures
such as the IMF, the EU, and the World Bank. Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith were very clear that the potential for degeneracy
existed. We have now reached that potential; increasingly centralised authority, states within states, the denuding of democratic
institutions and crony capitalism. Neoliberalism in practice is very different to neoliberalism in practice. Rather like 'really
existing socialism' and Marxism.
works best in authoritarian states because (in practice, if not in theory
As the statistics on that link show, there are certain countries (notably Russia and the Ukraine) where the +65 age group disapprove
of the change to democracy and capitalism. In the majority, however, people of all ages remain in favour.
For 'job' read 'bribe' (keep your mouth shut or lose it), for 'management' read 'take most of the interest out of the job
for everybody else and put them on a lower scale', etc. I guess you get my drift.
It's sad that you have such a negative, self-hating attitude towards your work.
Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could
have – moral and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core
Spoken like a true champagne socialist in a creative industry. How do you find meaning and fulfillment, or creative values, in
emptying bins, cleaning offices, sweeping the streets and a whole load of other work which needs doing but which is repetitive,
menial and not particularly pleasant?
There are two ways to get people to do work that needs doing but wouldn't be done voluntarily: coercion or payment. I think
the second is a more healthy way to run a society.
I've thought pretty much the same myself. Democracies can be good or bad (as the Greeks knew well)...but in our politic-speak
it is used to denounce and make good; as in "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East"...it is intended to make us feel
something good about Israel, as it humiliates the Palestinians and steals their land.
In ancient Greece....'tyrant' simply meant
'usurper' without any neccessary negative association....simply someone who had usurped political power...they recognized that
tyrannies could be good, bad or indifferent.
In Rome, dictator simply meant the cahp that took over fpr periods of six months at a time, during times of crisis.
I used to vacation in Yugoslavia in Marshall Tito's time....it was a wonderful place, beautiful, inexpensive and safe...very
very safe. What came into the power vacuum after he died in 1980...what happened to the country? I'd argue that his was a good
dictatorship or tyranny....
I'm also not too sure what the 90% of people unaffected by and uninterested in power politics in any given country feel about
the 'liberation' of Libya and Iraq from their prior dictatorships...I'm sure that plenty of people whose previously steady lives
have been wrecked, are all that thrilled.
I have recently been exercised by the right's adoption of "Social Justice". In the past it was the left and churches who talked
of social justice as a phenomenon to empower the poor and dispossessed, whether in this country or the developing world. Social
Justice was a touchstone of Faith in the City, for example, but it seems now to be the smoke screen behind which benefits are
stipped from the "undeserving poor".
Most of this crap comes from America. Crappy middle-management bureaucrats spouting "free-market" bollocks.
The efficiency of the private sector - some nob with a name badge timing how long you've been on the toilet.
Freedommm!!!!
It is not just neoliberalism. Everyone is at it - sucking the meaning out of words. Corporate bullshit, public sector bullshit.
Being customers of your own government is a crime that everyone is guilty of. This is what Orwell railed against decades ago,
and it has got worse.
Case in point; just look at the way in which the Cameron set about co-opting words and phrases justifiably applied to his own
regime and repurposed them against his detractors.
For example, people who took a stand against the stealth privatisation of the NHS were branded as "vested interests", quite
unlike the wholesome MPs who voted for the NHS bill who, despite the huge sums of money they received from the private healthcare
lobby, we are encouraged to believe were acting in our best interests by selling our health service to their corporate paymasters.
Or the farcical attempt to rebrand female Tory MPs as "feminists" despite their anti-social mobility, anti-equality, anti-human
rights and anti-abortion views.
The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used
it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid
profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it.
@Obelisk1 - You have single-handedly proven Massey's argument. We have become so embedded in the language of individuals,
choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy"
and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest.
If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive.
Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation
to the gallery and to this engaging person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
But in the eyes of the economic right, that is precisely the case. Adjectives like altruistic, caring, selfless, empathy and
sympathy are simply not in their vocabulary. They are only ever any of those things provided they can see some sort of beneficial
payback at the end.
maxfisher -> Venebles 11 Jun 2013 06:20
@Venebles - I was simply joining many commentators in the mire. Those that dispute the neoliberal worldview are routinely dismissed
as marxists. I thought I'd save you all the energy, duck.
I'm not sure that the families of the disappeared of Chile and Argentina would concur with you benign view of neoliberalism
and its effects.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
"... In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has collected 5.4m "adverse event" reports over the past decade, some from manufacturers reporting problems in other parts of the world. ..."
"... Interviews with patients and doctors have revealed flaws in how the medical devices industry is regulated. ..."
Patients around the world are suffering pain and many have died as a result of faulty
medical devices that have been allowed on to the market by a system dogged by poor regulation,
lax rules on testing and a lack of transparency, an investigation has found.
Pacemakers, artificial hips, contraceptives and breast implants are among the devices that
have caused injuries and resulted in patients having to undergo follow-up operations or in some
cases losing their lives.
In some cases, the implants had not been tested in patients before being allowed on to the
market.
In the UK alone, regulators received 62,000 "adverse incident" reports linked to medical
devices between 2015 and 2018. A third of the incidents had serious repercussions for the
patient, and 1,004 resulted in death.
In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has collected 5.4m "adverse event"
reports over the past decade, some from manufacturers reporting problems in other parts of the
world.
These included 1.7m reports of injuries and almost 83,000 deaths. Nearly 500,000 mentioned
an explant – surgery to remove a device.
The figures come from research by 252 journalists from 59 media organisations in 36
countries, which has uncovered a litany of problems in the global $400bn (£310bn)
industry.
Examples of failure in the market include:
Replacement hips and vaginal mesh products sold to
hospitals without any clinical trials. Patients relying on faulty pacemakers when manufacturers
were aware of problems. Complications with hernia mesh that ruled one of Britain's top athletes
out of competing for years. Regulators approving spinal disc
replacements that later disintegrated and migrated in patients. Surgeons admitting they were
unable to tell patients about the risks posed by implants because of a lack of central
registers. Patients in Australia being given devices that the regulator has approved on the
basis they have been approved in Europe.
The findings raise concerns about the level of scrutiny devices undergo before and after
they go on the market, and whether regulators detect and act upon findings quickly enough.
Information about problems with devices is, in many countries, kept under wraps, making it
difficult for patients to research procedures that have been recommended to
them.
Interviews with patients and doctors have revealed flaws in how the medical
devices industry is regulated.
Prof Derek Alderson, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said there had been
enough incidents involving flawed devices to "underline the need for drastic regulatory
changes", including the introduction of mandatory national registries for all implantable
devices.
"In contrast to drugs, many surgical innovations are introduced without clinical trial data
or centrally held evidence," he said. "This is a risk to patient safety and public
confidence."
The Guardian and organisations including the BBC , Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung,
coordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), have trawled
through thousands of documents, many obtained through freedom of information (FoI) requests, to
unearth some of the biggest problems.
Alongside interviews with patients and doctors, these have revealed flaws in the way the
industry is regulated that are unlikely to be fixed by rules due to come into force in
Europe.
Among the concerns raised by the Implant Files project are that manufacturers are in
charge of testing their own products after faults have developed – and are allowed to
shop around for approval to market their products, without declaring any refusals.
The Guardian has also heard about doctors who have close industry ties or seem eager to be
early adopters of the latest devices to enhance their professional standing.
Plans for tougher EU rules have been watered down after industry lobbying, according to a
huge trove of documents uncovered by the project.
She thought the investigation might have about six months left, although if Trump refuses a
face-to-face meeting, Mueller could seek a subpoena to put him before the grand jury. That
could be fought all the way to the supreme court.
There is a precedent, US v Nixon, when the justices ruled that the president must deliver
subpoenaed materials to a district court. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned.
If Mueller decides not to have that fight, he could write a report saying he believed the
president obstructed justice. If he does not reach that conclusion, the Democratic-led House
could issue its own subpoenas.
"It is a chess match," said Milgram. "We'll have to see how it plays out in the next
year."
Russia to UK: Prove Your Spies Did Not Poison Our Citizens or Face Consequences
What a great Russian response! Finally!
RI
Staff
Thu, Mar
29, 2018
|
300 words
17,686
225
YOLO Lavrov
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. At least Russia seems to think so. There may not be conclusive
evidence Britain poisoned Sergei Skripal and his visiting daughter Yulia. But then neither is there evidence
Moscow did it and that did not prevent London from demanding Russia proves its innocent (in 24 hours). Moreover
the British are keeping Russians away from evidence, not the other way around.
So why wouldn't Russia now demand
Britain instead proves its own innocence? Well, Lavrov's Ministry of External Affairs
can't think of a reason
why not.
It
better be something good!
Russia as demanded that London provide proof that
British spies did not carry out the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that their analysis of the assassination attempt has them
to believe in 'a possible involvement in it of the British intelligence services'.
The Ministry says that in the absence of proof of British innocence, Moscow will regard the incident as an
attempt on the lives of Russian citizens on foreign soil.
'An analysis of all the circumstances ... leads us to think of the possible involvement in it (the
poisoning) of the British intelligence services,' the foreign ministry said in a statement.
'If convincing evidence to the contrary is not presented to the Russian side we will consider that
we are dealing with an attempt on the lives of our citizens as a result of a massive political provocation.'
Excellent! 'Do what you demand of us and prove your innocence to us, or we will regard it was a state-sponsored
attempt at murder of our citizens.'
Lavrov has truly outdone himself here. And yet all he has done is responded in kind. So simple and yet so
brilliant.
UK had the verdict ,before the trial on poisoning.No evidence? If May cannot explain the
poisonings of Russians on their soil,Russia would be justifyed in a token bombing of London.
The Muslim Empire will forever be (gratefully) indebted to the Russian spirit and all it's
peoples for saving our posteriors in the Middle East ; if the people being saved are the
creators of the numbers everybody is using : what does that say about the brilliance of those
strong enough to protect our villagers from thieves!? *bows before the great Russian
homeland* :)
The idiots in our leadership outplayed and outmanoeuvred themselves within 48 hours; the
whole thing is farcical and an embarrassment to my Country. I know it, millions of other
Brits know it, the World knows it.
PS Call it the British establishment not low-brow Brits,
who are the people from the South and Scotland.
Agreed. A lot of commentators have difficulty separating the people from their
governments, don't realize that most 'leaders' are in their positions due to corruption
of one type or another.
by allowing your political class to do these types of things, just like
americans, you are complicit in the crimes. therefore ghartwells point is
well delivered
I am a B1 / A2 citizen of the UK that owns a Company and has been a
follower of the Conservatives for most of my political life (changing
my life as paid member of UKIP for 4 years). Do not question or
accuse me on my beliefs nor intelligence - our government has fallen
and sold its soul.
LOL. That`s the establishment, of which the many governments are only small
parts... People just get used... as always, and everywhere...
Gorbachev was given a Nobel Peace Prize (when it still meant something, I think),
but he is considered a traitor by people in Russia and not so much because of
what he has done, but how he went about doing it...
Rev 1 - it was the Red Indians or whatever they are called now that called / said
...... the US dark blue army and in general the white man or invaders "'speak
with forked tongue.'
We in the US sympathize with your condition. Both our countries suffer from the same
entropic political/financial methods and it is time to put an end to it. From GHW Bush
and Margaret Thatcher to GW Bush and Tony Blair, Obama and Cameron, we have all seen
nothing but unjustified wars and suffering. Now Theresa May is trying to trap Trump
into a war with Putin. So all of this is more about continuing the effort to remove
Trump than it is against Putin.
Thank you. But (sorry) my good Maggie made many mistakes but I didn't realise it
then, but for the UK, she was the last to defend our Country or so I thought, I
do not want to think about that.
Since Blair, the UK is a shadow of itself.
Regards "Now Theresa May is trying to trap Trump into a war with Putin", I
disagree, in that, this is thoroughly orchestrated between all the vermin. It is
like watching a B rated spy movie, but thankfully many Countries are waking up to
the goings on.
We need a revolution as do you guys ..we have gotten to that stage
unfortunately .......and yes, it is sad to say.
Your "Maggie" is the one who brokered the El Yamamah deal with the Saudis
that unleashed the the Saudi 9/11/01 attacks years later. She also provoked
the Malvinas War. Did good? C'mon that is like saying Benedict Arnold was a
hero. Yes, May is pulling Trump into war with Russia, why? Because the
British Empire is finally finished and it sees the Belt Road Initiative and
the American System a threat. We in the USA already had our revolution and
won the military victory. Now we will win the political victory over
imperialism. England should do the same.
Irish hate themselves? I think not : those people not only appreciate life but
they stand up for Palestine #WW3 ignorant slave of money sheeple cries trying to
defame their betters?
http://biblehub.com/1_samue...
shekel whores are promised to be left with
NOTHING ... they just donkeys to anybody with a spine after all hehe
View
Hide
As I remember having read:
- The proud people of Ireland are the only country really aligning with the
Palestinian people.
- The Irish are the only country in the world really boycotting the Invader
and Oppressor and Racist, Israel.
- The Irish have a lot of experience with "what is right and what is
wrong".
- The Irish have a lot of years, 800 years, experience what it is to be
oppressed by an oppressor and BTW it is their neigbor who is their
oppressor.
- The Irish are sometimes not quite clear in their stance for now they are
joining the warmonger Britian, the same oppressor who is trying to oppress
Russia which country have done nothing wrong to nobody nor at all to the
Irish.
Remarkable.
Britain does not comprise an entity called Ireland, hence Irish are not 'Brits',
as intimated by the statement above. Yes, Britain still colonises six counties on
the island of Ireland which they call Northern Ireland, a consequence of planting
their subjects over generations in a foreign land. Yes, Britain has caused much
damage to the entire world and its peoples. Its governing classes, and probably
the vast majority of its peoples (out of loyalty and poor education), are of
course blind to, and unaccepting of, such facts. Britain as it has operated over
the centuries, and now a fully engaged neoliberal stooge, can not survive in a
multi-polar world. Non-neoliberal, non-empire vassal Irish people would be fully
behind Russia and its cultural philosophy.
Just to point out an assumption that we have all jumped on, the poisoning; we do not actually know
if there was any poisoning done at all, all I have seen was on day one of this fiasco, a picture of
the two fast asleep on a park bench. I have seen no proof, jut the opposite in fact.
We have a letter to the Times from Steven Davies, the consultant in emergency medicine at
Salisbury hospital, stating that no [sic] patients had been treated for nerve-agent
poisoning, and only three had been treated for poisoning of any kind. [Type not stated]
Discussed here, with full text of the letter:
Oh no, sorry but, the letter has been published or a last the intention of it, in most
UK MSM, comments section blocked, interpretation watered down.....SSDD.
Damn I cannot edit it....as half my comment disappeared.
The letter was
published but the connation given to the context of it was totally reversed in
that millions will continue believing the government and media's BS.
I wondered too. Their phones were turned off before the incident, and who knows if the
Brutish (sic) authorities had arranged a deal with Skripal who is now a British citizen.
Perhaps Yulia will conveniently die now that she has apparently recovered a lot and may
decide to speak out. Imagine if she tried to contradict the May/Boris/EU/NATO line how long
she would survive.
I didn't now about the phones, Unless Skripal has duel Nationality he is a resident NOT
citizen, but it is intriguing how the UK government will get out of this hole they have
dug for themselves. "HOSPITAL HIT BY MSRN combined with EBOLA, AIDS and MARS
!!!?".......it is all a total crock of s..t and those Bsta.rds have seriously
embarrassed my country.
PS I still have a terrible feeling that it is about stopping
BREXIT.
She has no chance and no way back now. UK will never let her speak the truth. Two
options: speak what May wants or dissapear under "witness protection programm." Skripal
relatives (Ylia's step sister) was denied of UK visa now.
The Upper Class is going to loose the Plot.
Be vigilant.
The British Rotschild might give it another try, a chemical attack (4th time) in Syria.
Just to keep the game against Russia going.
Remind you that Jacob Rothschild. bought the "gaspipes" in Ukraine AND
Jacob R. is also taking part in a cooperative "alleged stealing" of the Syrian resources of
the Golan Heights with his Zionist Friends. Oil and Gas is there to have.
Mr. Assad of
Syria promised the world, all foreign forces will be driven from the land of the Syrian
people. I assume together with Hezbollah, Iran and of course the famous Syrian Tiger Brigade.
About time.
The Khazarians are left some time to move to their new country Ukraine. With hands off the
independent Republics of Luhansk and Donbass.
And, finally the Palestinian and Israelian people will have peace.
...'s pretty 'asymmetric' and rather 'subtle', ...ain't it?
NNNAAAAHAAA! ...Russia isn't being
offended WITHOUT consequences!
Not only are the Pomm's going to very silently 'divert' the attention fom this alleged
'poisoning', and let it 'slip', but are going to make OVERT 're-approachments' to Russia, come next
winter, and they get low on Natural Gas!
I don t want Russia to politely let them OFF . this is tge time ..because they chose to throw
theur "politicsl..media..world kangaroo court accuse ..no need for rvidence" GAME ..TO be
CONOKETELY MASSIVELY DESTROYED by Russia in a grand Historical sense this time aroubd ..i
want Russia to HANG THEM ALL politically by very intensely going on a diplomatic media
political campaignmit only takes nothing more than the resources russia ALREADY HAS...WORLD
PUBLIC OPINION GRAVITATING AROUND RUSSIA ..because these people are only continuing what all
started from CENTURIES AGO WITH JOHN MILTON thecplayright in elizabethan england ...HE was
one of the original creators of these caricaturish ..demonizing RACIST Pattern that hss been
unbroken sjnce then ....i am talking about his long ago appointment as FIRST ambassadir to
russia to open rekations in St petersburg but brought with him that SUPERIORITY complex snd
went back to england making his "reports" about how Russians were inferior oluncouth
..eatingveithout forks..drew the early cartoons we know TODAY reflected in these demonizing
of russia..NOW IS THE TIME FOR RUSSIA ..before the shots are fired...to FIRST DESTROY RVERY
LAST SHRED of that fake credibility from the west. So that in the afyermath of WHATEVER
transpires next ..the LYING Western
Atlantic Empire can NEVER EVER SLEAZE its way in lies NOR in "letting it slide away quietly "
as if nothing was the matter. Well..DUH
The denial of the economic ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend something
doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
Notable quotes:
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by those that have the power to do it. Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States government, Wall Street, US television media. Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it. ..."
"... Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is better than. ..."
"... "Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges that people have who are not poor. ..."
"... I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak" know exactly what I am trying to explain. Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist countries. ..."
"... Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct. I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years, the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly taking us back to feudal times. ..."
"... I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick! ..."
"... Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more commonly known, economic and ecological suicide. ..."
Term abuse didn't arrive with neoliberalism; it's been around since forever. Also, the fact
that most of our daily transactions might be commercial is a reflection of our own habits as
much as the changing use of language.
If a person is employed by a commercial gallery, they are effectively working in a shop,
and the people who visit these galleries are potentially customers. No surprise there. Just
like a person who uses transport can be a customer. Of course, there are public services
where commercial terms such as customer make little sense.
Sure, it isn't that important who is making the point, even if the point is made by
reference to questionable and contentious examples.
I also think that any even bigger influence on meaning / lack of meaning / interchangeable
meaning etc.has been postmodernity far more than neoliberalism.
All true but the left is just as bad as coining its Orwellisms. Witness the way nobody has to use an approved vocabulary to talk about every and any group
on fear of moral ridicule or worse. Language is a mental battlefield.
@RClayton - Can I suggest resurrecting William Morris's distinction between "work" (ie labour
that is moral, creative, aesthetic or, at least, hygienic - ie intrinsically worth doing) and
"toil" which is work done only because of the necessity to earn money to buy the means of
existence?
Having words that distinguish between these two ideas is useful. The 'work' you talk about
is 'toil' and most of it is done simply to service the money/capitalist system.
As an example, I have in front of me a rubber 'stress reliever' in the shape of PacMan. It
was given to me as a gift.
Presumably, somewhere in the world there is a factory full of people turning out this
rubbish. It adds nothing to the world's beauty, nor its ability to support the people living
on it. Its only uses are in providing paid 'toil' to support the factory workers and to
enable someone to give me something I don't need as a token of their friendship, probably
paid for from the fruits of their own toil.
Changing the words we use will not change this, but it does give us a framework in which
to think about how it might be changed.
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman,
and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University
Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
If I can repeat what I said at the top of this thread - The denial of the economic
ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend
something doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
The biggest problem isn't so much that people use the language of commercial business and are
free and easy with their abuse of terms (there's a new one), but that people treat government
and politics as a service, and see their relationship with governance as akin to a
client/customer relationship, to that end we elect politicians who tell us what we want to
hear, even if what we hear can be, all to often, somewhat meaningless or trite.
@TheRealCmdrGravy - There's nothing vague about it, It represents the whole of UK and US
government economic policy for the last thirty years with the happy outcomes that we enjoy
today.
But now you know what a neoliberal is, perhaps you can reread the excellent article above
with added relish and understanding. Glad to be of assistance. If you want anything else
looking up I suggest using a search engine before posting here that a particular word is too
difficult for you.
According to Bradford DeLong, a Berkeley economic historian, neoliberalism has two main
tenets:
"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core and the developing
periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua
non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be
eliminated as fast as possible).
The second is that governments in general lack the
capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core
missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and
a few others, governments should shrink and privatize)."
All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by
those that have the power to do it.
Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States
government, Wall Street, US television media.
Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in
print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it.
Example:
A couple of years back a motormouth U.S TV show host used the word "impact" in place of the
word "affect". He did so simply because "impact" seemed more dramatic. Now it is almost
impossible to hear or see the word "affect" used anywhere.
Now there are some of you that will say that language and usage of words change over time,
and I would agree with you, but when you see a word used in a context that is completely
inappropriate and that use is adopted in general you have to ask yourself questions like who
benefits from this.
Remember when Bush wanted to increase troop levels, he refered to the increase as a "surge".
"Surge" until then had a distinct meaning it was not associated with any meaning of
permanence, and that is why it was used.
Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is
better than.
"Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges
that people have who are not poor.
I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak"
know exactly what I am trying to explain.
Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist
countries.
Now all London Underground passengers are 'customers', which implies you are buying the
travel experience rather than paying for transportation. When misused it suggests to me lack
of strength and self-belief from the organization concerned.
@callaspodeaspode - Gosh - an excellent example of how to get things completely wrong. Just because a firm has the government for a customer does not mean it is a public sector
business.
Note the word 'customer'. In the case of the FE college, who is the customer - the
government or the students? Are the students just incidental fodder?
Your contract with the government will be for a certain job done in a certain for a
certain sum of money. In FE, the government has a sum of money which gets paid out
irrespective of the outcome. Indeed, how do you measure the 'outcome' of an FE college? In
your case, it's easy - either the software works or it doesn't.
Your company no doubt is either owned by an individual, or has shareholders. Those people
live on the profits of the company, or lose their money if it goes bust.
What is the profit made by an FE college? Who are the shareholders? Who goes broke if the
college folds? Still think an FE college is the same as private company?
@TheRealCmdrGravy - No definition is a distinct improvement on your deliberate distortion. I
was assuming you had the sense to find a definition on the internet for yourself, since you
managed to find your way here.
I do not consider alternative viewpoints brainless, i consider a refusal to even engage in
debate brainless, pretending that a word is undefined when there's reams of literature as
well as concise definitions freely available from any number of sources. That might
reasonably be construed as brainless.
Here, fill your boots, then if you have an actual argument instead of a crude attempt to
derail the debate it can be considered.
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic
liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the
size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
I'm convinced you had the brains to look it up yourself, that's why I suspect your agenda.
Now please stop wasting everyone's time unless you have something to contribute. I even
looked it up for you.
And I can give a further example. I used to work in a Private Equity-owned firm, which
happened to have some contracts to provide software support to the government.
Thus, in your conceptual framework, it was a public sector business. Indeed, by your reasoning, Lockheed Martin is a state-owned company as well.
I agree that 'Neoliberalism' has hijacked our vocabulary, but that is about the limit of our
agreement. People fling the word 'neoliberalism' around these days as a synonym for 'anything
I and my friends have decided is politically-economically objectionable' ('have decided', not
'think'). In the old days, 'fascist' served the same purpose in all those late-night student
flat discussions. I assume, until proven otherwise, that people who talk about
'neoliberalism', fall into the same category as those people who had so much difficulty
distinguishing between 'liberal democracy' and 'fascism'.
I can actually think of liberal left-leaning intellectuals who I can recall having
self-described as neoliberal. They, however, are distinctive for the sort of nuanced
understanding of political economy you are unlikely to find represented around the candles in
the kitchen on a Friday night when the world's problems are being discussed and solved.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my
"closed political agenda", very impressive
Not really. It is transparently obvious when you declare that neo-liberalism is "vague
stuff which I don't like" when there are cogent definitions of it, to which you have been
referred in the past.
this is not the kind of liberalism we needed it needed to be socially liberal but not
economically liberal. How dare people become entrepenurial or take the thatcherite tax cuts,
or buy goods made from slave labour. Some seriously sick yuppies out there.
Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct.
I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach
of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of
it.
She says that we need to look at the language as it says a lot about how we think. Sounds
about right to me. It's hardly arguing white means black, just that the words we choose say
something about what we mean.
Then she says that what we talk about isn't the stuff we need to concentrate on. That's a
matter of debate and opinion.
Except that preference theory does not take into account causality. In any event we have
the evidence, there are those who are perfectly happy to cast others to the wall just so long
as they do OK and even benefit from it.
@makingtime - Really ? Some very interesting points you've made there ...
your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you to understand without a
brain transplant.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my "closed
political agenda", very impressive. Secondly though it's interesting that you think a "closed
political agenda", which I am taking to mean a concrete political viewpoint, can only be
remedied with a "brain transplant" rather than through discussion. It's almos as though
you're saying "those with political views different to mine are brainless" which is quite a
bigoted point of view.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a very
helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
..the word "neo-liberal" which, so far as I can see, simply means "vague stuff which I
don't like".
Is it possible that you can't see very far because you're deliberately not looking? There
are perfectly adequate and precise definitions. I quite liked 'A Brief History of
Neoliberalism' by Prof D.Harvey as a long form definition, but since it's rather critical of
'vague stuff which I don't like', your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you
to understand without a brain transplant.
It is exasperating when political discussion is reduced to which foghorn can generate the
loudest interference. I suppose it's a mistake to waste time on correcting this rubbish
Doreen Massey is an academic. It shows in the way she writes. It's good that she raises
fundamental questions about society and the way it is managed. It has traditionally been the
role of academics to play that role.
The disappointing feature of the debate however is the absence of input from our
politicians. All our leading politicians have essentially the same view of our society and
economy. One in which, as Ms Massey indicates, choice exercised through market based
mechanisms is the key principal. There is no view of progress towards a good society. There
is no view of co-operation rather than competition. The only option is for us to measure
ourselves by what we consume.
Our political system and its parties have failed us. In particular it is the left that has
failed. It has accepted the social and economic arguments of the right and contented itself
with suggesting minor variations on the same theme. Activists on the left need to re-gather
their strength and more forcefully put forward a better alternative.
@retarius - Any government is only as good as the human rights it upholds.
Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years,
the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for
the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly
taking us back to feudal times.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are
found. Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning
and fulfilment in human lives.
Wishful and naive thinking. Most work is very unfulfilling and even in cases where it is
meaningful the day to day grind and intensity required by a job is making it a chore. There
are very few people who have a job that is really a pleasure. There are many people though
who have empty lives and were brainwashed into believing that their job is the most important
part of their existence.
@gyges1 - " This is playground level debating. You are just saying the meaning you give to
words is to be preferred to that of your opponents."
Ah, I see the problem - a narrow mind with a broad-brush tendency.
I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the
English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of
Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick!
@RClayton - But if we start to think about work differently - which then gets its expression
with the words we use - maybe it can change. Your Bangladeshi example is interesting because
it assumes they need to work in that way to exist. Should we not try and change the system so
a Bangladeshi can harness his or her creativity to connect their creative ideas to a global
market and earn money in this way, rather than selling their physical labour to connect
someone else's t-shirt to a global market?
It's not just vocabulary, its demeanor, etiquette and peoples entire self perception that has
been usurped by the skewed modern logic of markets and the service industry.
People are preempting the technological singularity by rendering themselves robotic in a
quite tragic struggle to perpetually remain relevant and employable in the form that the
whims of the dictatorship of the market see fit to determine.
Some nationalities even have an intrinsic advantage, their national character tending rather
to the robotic from the outset. What remains of human expression, of impulsivity, of
spontaneity, of charisma, of originality is up for question, but the paucity of modern life,
of human expression and interaction, will increase in direct relation to the increases in
efficiency and productivity that will be demanded of citizens. And this despite the fact that
we are suffering under the weight of massive over production, and the excessive demand on
resources that this entails.
Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more
commonly known, economic and ecological suicide.
@BaronessHawHaw - Working class pride in their jobs came from being highly skilled –
for example riveting in shipyards was difficult and you really were adding value there, so
was assembling a car and so on. Also, didn't most of their 'meaning and fulfilment' come from
the community, not really the work they were doing, except in so far as most of the people in
the community would be doing the same work so it gave them something to talk about?
I've never heard a modern person saying how much any of the jobs I listed give them
meaning or fulfilment. The kind of jobs that gave working class people a meaningful identity
have pretty much all gone.
Just looking at the Governments of Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary as an
example seems to indicate centrist and centre-right parties in power.
As I'm reading the annual report of my old sixth form college - which also operate adult
learning courses - and they're an exempt charity and therefore not liable for corporation
tax. They have an operating surplus (read: profit) on which no tax is paid, quite unlike a
private sector company.
"... Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top. Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are all doomed. ..."
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... Well it could be argued that postmodernism is the necessary condition for neoliberalism. ..."
'Customer'; 'growth'; 'investment'. We should scrutinise the everyday language that shapes how we think about the
economy
'We need to question that familiar categorisation of the economy as a space into which people enter in order to
reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work''.'
A
t a recent art exhibition I engaged in an
interesting conversation with one of the young people employed by the gallery. As she turned to walk off I saw she
had on the back of her T-shirt "customer liaison". I felt flat. Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my
experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation to the gallery and to this engaging
person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
The message underlying this use of the term customer for so
many different kinds of human activity is that in all almost all our daily activities we are operating as consumers
in a market – and this truth has been brought in not by chance but through managerial instruction and the
thoroughgoing renaming of institutional practices. The mandatory exercise of "free choice" – of a GP, of a hospital,
of schools for one's children – then becomes also a lesson in social identity, affirming on each occasion our
consumer identity.
This is a crucial part of the way that neoliberalism has become part of our commonsense understanding of life.
The vocabulary we use to talk about the economy is in fact a political construction, as Stuart Hall, Michael Rustin
and I have argued in our
Soundings manifesto
.
Another word that reinforces neoliberal common sense is "growth", currently deemed to be the entire aim of our
economy. To produce growth and then (maybe) to redistribute some of it, has been a goal shared by both neoliberalism
and social democracy. In its crudest formulation this entails providing the conditions for the market sector to
produce growth, and accepting that this will result in inequality, and then relying on the redistribution of some
portion of this growth to help repair the inequality that has resulted from its production.
This of course does nothing to question the inequality-producing mechanisms of market exchange itself, and it has
also meant that the main lines of struggle have too often been focused solely on distributional issues. What's more,
today we are living with a backlash to even the limited redistributional gains made by labour under social
democracy. In spite of all this, growth is still seen as providing the solution to our problems.
The second reason our current notion of wealth creation, and our commitment to its growth, must be questioned is
to do with our relationship with the planet. The environmental damage brought about by the pursuit of growth
threatens to cause a catastrophe of which we are already witnessing intimations. And a third – and perhaps most
important – defect of this approach is that increased wealth, especially as measured in the standard monetary terms
of today, has few actual consequences for people's feelings of wellbeing once there is a sufficiency to meet basic
needs, as there is in Britain. In pursuing "growth" in these terms, as a means to realise people's life goals and
desires, economies are pursuing a chimera.
Instead of an unrelenting quest for growth, might we not ask the question, in the end: "What is an economy for?",
"What do we want it to provide?"
Our current imaginings endow the market and its associated forms with a special status. We think of "the economy"
in terms of natural forces, into which we occasionally intervene, rather than in terms of a whole variety of social
relations that need some kind of co-ordination.
Thus "work", for example, is understood in a very narrow and instrumental way. Where only transactions for money
are recognised as belonging to "the economy", the vast amount of unpaid labour – as conducted for instance in
families and local areas – goes uncounted and unvalued. We need to question that familiar categorisation of the
economy as a space into which people enter in order to reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work", in
return for material rewards which they can use for consuming.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are found. Work is usually – and
certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could have – moral
and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core. A rethinking of work could lead us to address more creatively both
the social relations of work and the division of labour within society (including a better sharing of the tedious
work, and of the skills).
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic vocabulary, for instance that
bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure – terms that carry with them implicit moral
connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future
positive outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
Above all, we need to bring economic vocabulary back into political contention, and to question the very way we
think about the economy in the first place. For something new to be imagined, let alone to be born, our current
economic "common sense" needs to be challenged root and branch.
•
Doreen Massey will be discussing Vocabularies of the Economy at a
Soundings seminar
on 13 June, 6.30-8.30pm, at the Marx Memorial Library, London. More information [email protected]
@Yorkied24 - Well, I just don't accept that. I agree that monetarism is a major part
of Friedman's legacy (as incorporated into neo-liberal doctrine). But, neo-liberalism
is what is says on the tin. It is a 'new' version of the liberalist free trade agenda
of the past, modified to take into account the welfare state.
I guess what I'm most
interested in is how you can disentangle and separate politics from economics, since
they are two sides of the same coin (where does 'science' fit in, by the way).
it seems that the political side of Neo-liberalism (or liberal democracy) has come up
with a new definition of the word "Catholic".
The Irish Prime-minster stated with a straight face in the Irish parliament today
........ that he is a "Catholic" outside parliament but when he enters parliament he
is not a "Catholic"........ in relation to a bill allowing for abortion to be
legalized in Ireland.
@NeverMindTheBollocks - when you criticise the author of "nonsensical thinking", this
suggests to me that you are uncomfortable with ideas that question "common sense".
Rather than engaging with the arguments, you are simply dismissing them as somebody's
arbitrary opinion. You seem to be suggesting that Massey is forcing her opinion on you
- but surely, like any good academic, she is really asking critical questions, rather
than providing answers and solutions. That's what academia is for. Why does that seem
to make you so angry?
@Pumplechook - Enterprise culture is a fine emboldening phrase to describe the sinking
of society casting citizens adrift with nothing but what nature gave them to keep them
afloat. Some might suggest we need to concentrate on mono platform non deliverables
going backwards. Or on a fleet of very cheap rubber dinghies.
Ms Massey clearly fails to see importance of remaining customer/client-focused in our
modern enterprise culture. It is crucial in terms of achieving outcomes-based win-win
solutions, as well as assisting in the interation of leading-edge opportunities and
leveraging cross-platform deliverables going forward.
@KingOfNothing - No, what I said was that neoliberalism is not an economic theory. For
a start, Milton Friedman's work has its own name in economics, which is monetarism.
Neoliberalism is a made up political word only used by those who are more interested
in politics and rhetoric than economics and science.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The
proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top.
Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of
deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of
the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are
all doomed.
@bill4me - 'Sweet smell of success'?
No, it's just that your shit-detector is so absent or degraded that you can no longer
smell the stink of 'filthy lucre'.
@Yorkied24 - I disagree. There is only one writer that deserves volleys of ad hominem
attacks and cheap insults and thats Julie Burchill. I know she's about as relevant as
a horse drawn carriage but nevertheless I think we need to keep criticism of
journalists in proportion.
@bill4me - The US under the aegis of freedom and capitalism sponsored paramilitary
regimes in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile and
Argentina. Not to mention Greece and Iran. It continues to sponsor repressive regimes
in the middle east and is about to make peace with the Taliban.
You mistake capitalism
as it exists in theory, or in your head with 'actually existing capitalism' which is
often red in tooth and claw. The bloody history of the 20th century (particularly
world war one, without which no world war two) was in many ways a consequence of
imperialism which was a consequence of capitalism.
Theories are all very well, but
they run into problems called people. This applies equally to Marx, Smith and Hayek.
@Yorkied24 - But they don't do they? They don't engage in cowardly and anonymous ad
hominem attacks. They are professional journalists. The Guardian pays them to write
articles. They then put their name to said articles. It's a transparent process. They
are infinitely better than people who anonymously insult them without engaging in
debate.
@bill4me - No, but it rather skews the data doesn't it? The Soviet Union lifted more
people out of extreme poverty than perhaps any society before or since. But I wouldn't
advocate Stalinism. I'm sure Pinochet's supporters could point to a growth in
prosperity during his reign, but I shouldn't imagine many Chileans would favour a
return to authoritarian rule.
Headline date is often meaningless, for example George
Osborne may be able to argue that more people are employed than ever before, whilst
the opposition may be able to argue that more people are unemployed than ever before.
Bo
Both statements my be true, but what do they tell us in isolation?
Does it not occur to you that appalling governance may be a consequence of the form
capitalism takes right now?
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek,
Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton
University Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
So, someone writes a book calling two economists 'neoliberals', so that makes it
so? By that argument, it also calls them Masters of the Universe, so they're fucking
He-Man too.
If you think capitalism is all winners and no losers you're either
tremendously naive or a bit thick.
I wouldn't rely on headline figures on Wikipedia to
support your argument. Drill down a little, find the data, look at individual
countries, see what type of regimes operate in said countries. And imagine, for a
second, that the stats are meaningful, then imagine what responsible capitalism could
achieve.
@Justthefactsman - Slightly off topic, but I hanker for obliged rather than obligated.
Also, most of the time I just feel ok, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Fair to middlin'
you might say. I seldom feel awesome.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a
very helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
It's sometimes worth having a debate about what particular words mean, but all
debate rests on certain presumptions, a foundation on which the argument is built, and
in this case, Massey counts on her audience sharing her understanding of the term
'neoliberal', which many of us do. Anyone who doesn't can very easily look it up
online and quickly find a definition which sits well with Massey's points.
Your and others' approach to rejecting her argument is ungracious cavilling. It's
easy to do this in response to any argument, and make no mistake - anyone with
intelligence and an open mind can recognise it very clearly.
@Ken Terry - Chomsky is right, ("The Manufacturing of Consent") 'At the head of it is
the Military\Industrial Complex, coining the euphemisms of war to make the unthinkable
palatable.
On a localised scale, consider the Coalition who have done a similar job on the word,
"Reform". If you look at history's most accurate and honorific incidences of political
and parliamentary Reform look at the two Reform Acts which extended the franchise to
adult male suffrage, 1832 and 1867, under Peel and Disraeli, Tories FFS, opposed to
the Liberal's merciless free market obsessions.
What is "reforming" about stripping poor, ill and vulnerable people of their material
support?
Pure Deformation.
I'm not a Tory, (Lifelong Socialist) but I think it's important to reconnect the
Conservative Party with some of its avowed traditional self-definitions. "Maintaining
continuity with past institutions, and a 'gradualism', if change is necessary." (Henry
Cecil, I think).
Where has been the 'gradualism' in this Govt's' sudden and relentless pace of forcing
change on the mass of its people by Bill after Bill restricting our aspirations and
well-being?
We are governed by political liars who see this state of affairs as a triumph for
their expertise. Any criticism is dismissed as not being able to accept the world 'as
it is.'
The irony, of course, is that neoliberalism has *always* been coupled by high state
spending. I know they say different, but that doesn't make it a reality. Stop showing
your ignorance of the subject and go and delve in to some of the vast literature on
the subject.
@joseph1832 - I think this misses the point though. You're trying to claim there can
be words that are neutral, a language without a political dimension. This is besides
the point, it's certainly not feasible in a society constructed as it is now.
The
real point is that language is itself a field of struggle. It's a terrain on which
neoliberalism must be fought. In doing so we need not pretend to be doing anything
less than entering a political fight. In combating neoliberalism no claim to be
'neutral' is necessary, that would be precisely to do what it does from the opposite
direction - claim universality, eternalisation etc. The left does need to assert
interrogate the language of neoliberalism and assert its own. Not becuase this is less
political (I think "manipulation" is too strong a word here, the matter is somewhat
more complex than that) but becuase it can offer a better future.
@DemocracyNever - I should think the first two responses illustrate how and why debate
is increasingly meaningless. Neither of you engage with the argument or posit an
alternative; hence no debate.
That debate should be meaningful is given, that it should be an art form is,
frankly, silly.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum
of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
Noam Chomsky
"... The Private Contractors Using Vault 7 Tools for US Gov: Testimony Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1... https://www.opednews.com/ar... ..."
"... Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild- It's the News- Part 2... https://www.opednews.com/ar... ..."
"... Or is it owing to MI5/MI6 desperation, with how Trump will handle their involvement in the US Presidential Campaign. James Bond never had those types of problems, in the days when UK intelligence was not run by social media outlets. ..."
Not forgetting the US have their battalions of cyber trolls, together with the EU.
Then look into the media branches of cyber trolls. Ironic, when the UK Government is so
focused on Russia Today and the few funds they receive from the Russian Government.
Good point, with regards 'news' via social; media.
I do like the George Eliason articles, which explain intelligence agencies reliance on
social media. Including the US outsourcing 80% of it's intelligence to the social media.
Not just the US, when you look at the similarities with UK Media.
The Private Contractors Using Vault 7 Tools for US Gov: Testimony Shows US Intel
Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1...
https://www.opednews.com/ar...
Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up
Rebuild- It's the News- Part 2...
https://www.opednews.com/ar...
..........................
So what is with the timing? Is it to take attention away from BREXIT?
Or is it owing to MI5/MI6 desperation, with how Trump will handle their
involvement in the US Presidential Campaign. James Bond never had those types of
problems, in the days when UK intelligence was not run by social media outlets.
I have never managed fully to understand the mechanism by which the media and political
class decide when to leave a fact, a glaringly obvious and vital fact, completely excluded from
public debate. That process of exclusion is a psychological, not an organisational, phenomenon
but extremely effective.
Brexit continues to dominate mainstream political discussion, and the Northern Ireland
border issue remains at the centre of current negotiations, forced there by the London
government's reneging on the agreement it signed almost a year ago. But there is a secret here,
hidden in plain sight, the glaring fact driving the entire process, but which the media somehow
never mention.
"... Operating on a budget of Ł1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of Ł1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received Ł168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and Ł250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
Bellingcat (not Belingcat) is a [intelligence aenies] front, financed by amongst other
orgs, the Atlantic Council which in turn is financed by, well it's a long list!
Anonymous have leaked some documents relating to a secretive (and Orwellian) UK Government
'Integrity Initiative' project launched in 2017. There are numerous PDF files detailing
members, organizational structure, budgets, 'mission statements', etc. The backup documents
are held at pdf-archive. The project has members from the FCO, MOD, journalists, academics,
the usual thinktanks - Chatham House, Atlantic Council, Hermitage Foundation - and the usual
suspects - Browder, Applebaum, Aaronovitch.
One document contains an interesting reference the the Skripal incident. The project team
describe it as a 'Dirty Trick'. Given these documents all pass through the FCO for funding
and overall project approval, that must also be the FCO view. That suggests that the
government is fully aware that Skripal wasn't poisoned by the Russians. If the Russians
really had attempted to murder Skripal, it would be referred to as attempted murder, use of
CW, act of war, etc. and not a 'dirty trick'.
Embarrassing yellow paper journalism: attempt to connect the deal with Skripals false flag
operation by British intelligence agencies. The Daily Mail story preudo-analyst from Bellingcat
as a serious source, but provides no source at all for the alleged Russian quotes.
This actually a quite interesting article ( [written] by the 5 eyes intelligence
agencies)
Hot on the heels of proven Saudi state sanctioned murder under diplomatic immunity we have
a completely UNFOUNDED accusation that Russia has essentially committed the same crime.
Saudi bad guy.....Russia bad guy. Two negatives equals a positive (kind of thing). See
what I just did there? LMAO
The US spent $824.6 billion in 2018 compared to Russia's budget of $46 billion (18 times
the difference). Nevertheless, Congress recently declared, that in the event of a war with
Russia, the US could lose! So, if a President (Obama, Trump, whoever) really wanted to "Make
America Great Again" he would have to begin by firing 90% of the Military Industrial
Complex.
and Daily Mail knows this detail of how he emerged after the meeting because ...
more to come from BS factory ...
janus 1 day ago
Daily Mail will report that he died trying to slaughter a convention of journalists at
Putin's behest.
So ******* sick of britain's ruling class i want to wretch, if we need to break Britain to
get rid of them, so be it. They're all a bunch of decadent pedos and foppish fags
matriculated on globalism. they're disgusting, and even though we'll never get to see the
details, they actively tried to undermine our democracy (along with Tel Aviv).
And so it goes with our 'special relationships', special indeed, with friends like
these...
janus
Shemp 4 Victory 1 day ago
And Daily Mail knows this detail of how he emerged after the meeting because. Because they
read it from a script provided by a branch of MI6 known as OSF (Office of Substandard
Fiction).
No, you're right; Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing
firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management. I don't know if the 'Duncan' is
still part of the outfit, but Firestone Duncan was headed by Jamison Firestone. He's an
American lawyer, born in Los Angeles and a member of the New York state bar.
I and others have hazarded a guess that Magnitsky was persistently referred to as a lawyer
because testimony between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by attorney-client
privilege; thus, much of what the Russian state might want to know from Magnitsky might fall
under this protection. But of course Russia would not be fooled into thinking he was a lawyer
– the device was likely just for western consumption, so Browder could scream that
Russia was suborning testimony illegally from Magnitsky.
Browder, however, had no real reason to believe Magnitsky was a lawyer, as he admitted
when questioned under oath.
" In a 2015 deposition regarding Prevezon, Browder again described Magnitsky as his
lawyer. He was quickly questioned by opposing counsel. This time, Browder was under oath
(page 25):
Q: Mr. Magnitsky is an attorney; you think that's accurate?
BROWDER: He was my attorney.
Q: I see. And he had a law degree in Russia?
BROWDER: I'm not aware that he did.
Q: I see. And he went to law school?
BROWDER: No.
Magnitsky had been granted power of attorney on several occasions, but he was not a
lawyer. As Browder would detail in his deposition, when there was a 2002 challenge regarding
tax payments, Magnitsky represented Hermitage in court."
That's a very useful source, incidentally; it discusses that Magnitsky never once
mentioned in his testimony the tax fraud which the Russian government supposedly perpetrated
to steal millions, and Hermitage did not lose anything thereby; the Russian treasury absorbed
the loss. And the fraud was discovered by testimony delivered by Rimma Starova, who worked
for one of the shell companies accused. But Magnitsky is regularly and stubbornly credited
with having discovered the theft, and his alleged stubborn investigation is in turn credited
with his arrest, to get him out of the way.
Browder agreed to be deposed in 2015, in an action he initiated against Prevezon, which
firm he accused of using the profits from the alleged tax rebate scheme to purchase New York
real estate. Prevezon was represented in this action by Natalia Veselnitskaya. I'm sure you
will recognize her name.
Here are a couple of my old posts, one of them an excellent one by kovane which drew on
some Russian sources and which demonstrated that Browder – in collusion with Magnitsky
– claimed tax deductions for hiring handicapped employees who either did not perform
the jobs for which they had been hired or did no work at all. Magnitsky signed their
employment books, and Browder himself signed off on the tax deduction application. They
pertain directly to the Magnitsky deception and to Browder's slippery background.
"... Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. ..."
"... Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were. ..."
People should remember, when international institutions continue to falter and crumble after
all the decades of effort to build them, that they were doing what makes Michael McFaul
happy. I hope that's enough.
Oh well, whatever tickles these pathetic people's fantasies Michael McFawl going
buuuuk-buk-buk and Bill Brawder ('cos he's full of electrolytes) must not have very much to
do these days except think about what Vladimir Putin does every early morning.
Realistically, this IS a tactical defeat for Russia. The votes had already been counted, and
Prokopchuk was pretty much a shoo-in. Then the U.S. launched a campaign to stop this, and
must have intimidated a lot of the countries into changing their vote.
Russophiles should just admit that it was a tactical defeat, shrug it off, and continue
the war Because it IS a war. One battle lost Realistically.
As I keep saying, it is a tactical defeat for international institutions. They are exposed as
merely fronts for American influence, with no genuine objectivity. Prokopchuk is already a
Deputy Head of Interpol, and will remain one. Browder was simply exercising self-preservation
disguised as the usual progressive activism, but when people who were in a position to cast
votes see that they are being personally thanked by Michael Mcfaul, then by God any one of
them who does not realize he or she has been had is thicker than most people are who are
allowed out unsupervised.
Russia – and Putin – was never going to 'run' Interpol; in fact, if Prokopchuk
had won, the USA would be tying itself in knots trying to impede every Interpol investigation
after that, just to spite Russia. Washington simply did not want a Russian to win, and it was
successful in scaring enough people to prevent it from happening. But Prokopchuk hasn't gone
away, and will still be as influential as he was before. Nothing has really changed very much
at Interpol, but the USA just publicly turned on a huge influence campaign to change the
decision. Does that mean Interpol is just another political western tool? It surely does. Who
can't see that now? Anyone?
Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal
Khodorkovsky. They were the two 'high-profile dissidents' who were cited in a
flood-the-English-speaking newspapers campaign that said Putin was about to get control of
Interpol. They pointed out that the Nazis had control over it in the 1930's, but apparently
that was not as bad as Putin running it. Of course they managed to panic enough voters that
the Russian who had been the favourite was repudiated. But the whole thing is just too
childish for words, because the net effect is to showcase how political international
institutions have become, and undermine confidence in them.
Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for
short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall
apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So
Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were.
Prosecutor General: Magnitsky chemically poisoned as a diversion on Browder's
orders
You dirty Russian rats can't pin that goddam rap on me!!!
A new criminal case has been opened in the Russian Federation against William
Browder, founder of the Hermitage Capital Foundation, international financial speculator,
lobbyist for anti-Russian sanctions and a sponsor of a significant part of the Russian
liberal opposition.
Details revealed at a special briefing organized by the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Russian Federation.
Browder has been accused of creating a criminal organization (part 1 of article 210 of
the criminal code), which had been operating since 1999, which was formed for "committing
serious economic crimes on Russian territory and that of other countries". Nikolay Atmon'ev,
advisor to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, said that companies in Cyprus,
Latvia and Switzerland had ben established in Browder's interests and had cashed and
laundered hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Office of the Prosecutor General believes it "very likely" that the auditor Sergei
Magnitsky and several other of his accomplices were killed on Browder's direct orders because
they were undesirable witnesses: "Initially, the deaths of Gasanov, Kurochkin and Magnitsky
were considered to have been through natural causes, because of sicknesses that they had; the
death of Korobyeinikov seemed to have been accidental. However, further data was obtained,
indicating the violent nature of the deaths of these persons". The Investigative Committee
opened a murder inquiry into Browder's business partners Oktai Gasanov, Valeriy Kurochkin and
Sergei Korobyenikov. Browder is a suspect as regards the elimination of financier Alexander
Perepelichny, who died in 2012 in the British town of Weybridge (in the Russian immigrant's
stomach were found traces of Asian poisonous plant Gelsemium elegans). According to Atmen'ev,
the Prosecutor's office sent to the Investigative Committee notification of its decision that
an inquiry be opened as regards making a criminal case against Browder because of the
suspicion that he had been involved in the murder of Perepelichny. As for Magnitsky, who died
in 2009 at the hospital of the "Matrosskaya Tishina" remand centre, the Office of the
Prosecutor General believes that he was poisoned "as a diversion and by a chemical substance
consisting of aluminium compounds", which brought about the development of his cardio-hepatic
failure. "What Browder was especially interested in was that Sergei Magnitsky die so as to
avoid his being exposed", said Atmon'ev.
"Amongst the chemicals that pose a hidden threat to humans, there is a group of toxic
aluminium compounds. In Russia, there has not been an investigation targeted at these
substances. Detailed analysis of scientific information shows that for several decades
toxicological studies of aluminium compounds have been carried out previously and there
continues exclusive research into them by organizations in the the United States, France and
Italy. There has been studied particularly closely the acute and chronic toxicity of a number
of hazardous aluminium compounds that are ingested orally or inhaled and their effects on the
human body Analysis of substances obtained from the bodies of Kurochkin, Korobyenikov,
Gasanov and Magnitsky has led to the conclusion that the deceased persons had signs of
chronic poisoning with a toxic water-soluble aluminium compound that had been administered
orally", said a representative of the Office of the Russian Prosecutor, Mikhail
Alexandrov.
In the very near future, the Russian Federation will announce that Browder is on the
international wanted list under the UN Convention against transnational crime. "There is the
possibility of extradition provided for in the Convention, even in cases when between the
countries that decide the issue of extradition,there is no bilateral extradition Treaty",
said Atmon'ev.
They gotta be joking! Trust me! I'm as straight as they come!
RT keeps stating that Magnitsky was employed by Browder. I'm pretty sure he wasn't. He was
employed by an audit company, Firestone Duncan, that advised Browder in his shady,
tax-dodging operations.
Browder has always tried to make out that he was a pal of Magnitsky and how he grieved for
his fate.
Browder not once visited his "friend" Magnitsky when he was held on remand.
At least they have stopped calling Magnitsky a "lawyer".
Browder persisently called him a lawyer, though, in numerous interviews, when he must have
known damned well he was no such thing.
You'd think the British would have tried to sort out the taxation implications of Markly
Meg's marriage to Prince Harry BEFORE they got married. It's not as if this is the first time
someone in the British political establishment has been hit with this issue of being a US
citizen and therefore liable to pay tax to the IRS on income earned outside the US as well as
within the country.
Well, she could always do what Mr. Capitalism Bill Browder did, and renounce her American
citizenship. The US government has demonstrated on more than one occasion that, in his case,
it does not hold that against him although he plainly did it for tax reasons.
" Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that
renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service
obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to
avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the
future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations,
including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as
United States citizens abroad "
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
They still get you even when you're no longer an American citizen.
Oh, bullshit. If a former American like, say, Bill Browder, murders somebody in England, the
USA is going to get nowhere demanding his extradition to be tried as a previous American
citizen for murder. What would be the use of renouncing one's citizenship as an American if
all American rules still apply to you?
I can see the US authorities going after you if you renounced your citizenship just to
escape child support or alimony, providing you have a job in your new country. But I don't
see how the USA could just access your bank account – in another country – and
drain off payments; doesn't sovereignty count for anything?
Presumably, as well, the USA is not going to get into a pissing contest with the British
Royal Family over what it claims as its share of Markle's newfound wealth.
Buffoon Boris of Bullingdon Club notoriety and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
risability got whacked with a US tax bill because he too was a US citizen. He huffed and
puffed and said he would not pay and would renounce his being one of the Exceptional Nation.
In the end, he coughed up what he owed, but he still renounced his US citizenship.
I assume the passage I quoted is basically saying that renouncing US citizenship will not
automatically wipe out previous or outstanding unpaid tax liabilities, crimes committed in
the past in territories under US jurisdiction or future crimes in the same territories. So
even if the Markly One does renounce US citizenship, any income she receives individually or
jointly with her husband, including gifts, can still be subjected to taxation if she still
owes unpaid tax to the authorities.
Then that's probably reasonable – the United States could recover income from her up to
the amount she has outstanding in US taxes. Unless she has one of those
invisible-but-building student loans, such a sum would probably not amount to much. But the
way the law is worded suggests US citizenship is far more a curse than a gift, in that
renouncing it frees you from none of the responsibilities. It implies that American law
follows you around like a bridal train.
As part of their hissy fit over a Russian in charge of Interpol (a Russian whose brother is a
Ukrainian diplomat lol), Senators wants it so anyone whose name is put on a red notice by
Russia cannot be denied entry or asylum.
Reminds me of when Castro sent all the trash from Cuba to the United States once they made
a similar law.
That'd be awesome. Get the bunting and the confetti ready at O'Hare for the arrival of a
couple of hundred Pavlenskys, who will promptly nail their sacks to the parking lot of the 35
East Wacker Building, a Chicago landmark. Most appropriate. I think you will agree.
Just this morning (Monday 19 Nov) the Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case
against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his
gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang. It is
alleged that Browder used military-level "diversionary chemical substances" [whatever that
is] mixed to aluminium, to form the poison.
Browder denies the charges, and also points the finger at Major-General Alexander
Prokopchuk of the Russian Federation police. Prokopchuk is in the running to become head of
Interpol. Which, if he does, he said he will pursue Bill Browder to the ends of the earth,
and nowhere on this planet will it be safe for him any more.
Which is why Browder is worried about Prokopchuk's nomination.
Now we know why the UK staged the Skripal farce. It is a redirection attempt to make Browder
look like a victim. The fallout of Browder being convicted of using chemical weapons from
criminal purposes would make NATzO look bad since NATzO invested itself in his "victimhood"
and elevated the corrupt accountant Magnitsky into a human rights martyr saint.
I imagine they mean the poison was mixed with other substances to conceal the presence of the
poison itself, since he would certainly be autopsied if he died. And poisoning would
certainly explain his very sudden and rapid turn for the worse. But Browder never visited him
– neither did anyone from Hermitage Capital Management or Firestone Duncan, to the best
of my knowledge. Browder's story was always that Magnitsky was the sole employee left behind,
because he – Browder – had pulled everyone else out, for their safety. Who
administered the poison? And in what circumstances – Browder's story also was that
Magnitsky died from beatings and neglect, in that the prison authorities would not let anyone
bring him the medicine he needed for a known condition. In medicine would be the perfect way
to deliver a poison, but Browder's story was that he was denied medicine, and he'd surely be
suspicious of anything else, wouldn't he? Here, Sergey; brought you a nice meat pie, old man.
quite apart from the likelihood that prison authorities would not let non-family visitors
give him any food, since he was the prosecution's star witness.
Of all the fuckers who simply make up scurrilous crap about Russia and Russians, Browder
is the one I'd most like to see them get. My dream is that he would go to prison in Russia,
but we mustn't be greedy, and I think we all know that will never happen.
Could aluminium phosphide have been put into Magnitsky's cell in the form of tablets or
pellets mixed with water, supposedly to get rid of an insect or rat infestation?
Inhaling the compound is as dangerous as consuming it and inhalation could have caused his
fatal heart attack. Water would be an ideal way to transport the poison especially if it is
colourless in that medium.
Come to think of it, my earlier comment was unnecessarily complicated: the poison, if it had
been aluminium phosphide, only had to be given to Magnitsky in a glass of water when he got
thirsty.
Don't need exotic "made only in Russia" chemicals. AlP is not going to leave a trail back to
its source. And both Al and P are found in the body so forensic identification is not
trivial.
Anything is possible, but visitors to the state's star witness would be viewed with the
greatest suspicion if they were not family, you would think, as doubtless the state would
have stressed what a valuable prisoner he potentially was. I would imagine they would be
subjected to a pretty thorough scan and search. And there would be a record of all visits and
visitors. Anyone who was Russian and still living in Russia would doubtless be investigated.
"... "He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why Browder is ready to stage any provocation," ..."
"... "influenced by the fact that the entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on the territory of Cyprus." ..."
"... "the Cypriot government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations under European conventions," ..."
A group of MEPs have urged Cyprian authorities not to cooperate with Russia on an inquiry
against the man behind the Magnitsky Act, William Browder. Now, a Russian lawyer claims that
Browder himself arranged this petition to hide data on his operations.
Browder, a US-born British investor and the founder of Hermitage Capital Management, fears
that his fraudulent investment schemes involving offshore assets in Cyprus would be revealed to
European authorities if Cyprus continues to cooperate with Moscow on its probe against him,
Natalya Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who conducted her own investigation into Browder's
operations, told RT. She added that Browder is actively trying to paint the investigation
against him as politically motivated.
"He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his
financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why
Browder is ready to stage any provocation," Veselnitskaya said. She went on to say that
the investor's decision to intervene was particularly "influenced by the fact that the
entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on
the territory of Cyprus."
The incident that Veselnitskaya was referring to took place in late October 2017. At that
time, 17 members of the European Parliament appealed to Cypriot President Nikos Anastasiades in
an open letter, in which they called on him to stop assisting Russia in its investigation
against Browder.
The MEPs particularly expressed their concerns over the fact that "the Cypriot
government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations
through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations
under European conventions," as reported
by the local Cyprus Mail daily.
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all
of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him
unfolded.
The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare
water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has
been opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the
party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."
– This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders
(see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.
That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most
from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.
This critique is pretty superficial. The truth is that Ukraine drifted to Baltic model (not without help from Western Europe
and the USA) for a long time. And the process started in 2001 not in 2014. That means that February 2014 coup d'état by far right
nationalist forces was just quantity turned into quality. With the dissolution of the USSR, it is clear that the result of WWII
and Yalta conference will be revised.
While it is true that it was the greatest geopolitical victory of Barack Obama and the USA against Russia, it made
the world more dangerous. The fact that it saws the teeth of dragon escaped those great US neocon strategists, like
Victoria Nuland. She looks pretty medictre person to me, judging from her public appearances. Far below the level of
position she occupied. Out of depth. Kind of early variation of Nikki Haley theme.
The USA established itself as a world power at the end of WWI, and the No.1 nation after WWII. So apparance of the USA on
world scene happened a century ago and the period of the USA primacy started around 1945 or 72 year ago. But after
dissolution of the USSR the US elite lost the countervailing power that kept it in check (and Sober) and now neocons which came to
power after the crash fo the USSR are destroying the USA pretty fast. They are real national cancer. So sad...
Neocons policy of fighting and challenging the rest of the world essentially guarantee that its dominant position will not last
more one century.
In
March 23rd, Gallup headlined
"South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering" , and the Ukrainian part of that
can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014
imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see above), which he and his press misrepresented (and
still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a 'democratic revolution',
but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship
and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such
misery, it's now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire
world.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama
regime began planning
for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside
the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or
nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social
Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or
"Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing
the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed),
under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the
Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption,
even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end
Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
The head of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor said it was
"the most blatant coup in history" but he couldn't say that to Americans, because he knows
that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to
George W. Bush's equally unprovoked invasion of
Iraq -- for which America's 'news' media suffered likewise no penalties).
When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was "I told the
business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the
most blatant coup in history," but he was lying to say this, because, as I
pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in
his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view "the most blatant coup in history," no
conditionals on that.
Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton , and Sarkozy, did to Libya -- in
their zeal to eliminate yet another nation's leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar
Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state
and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the
Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar
al-Assad, another ally of Russia) -- but the 'news' media have continued to hide what Obama
(assisted by America's European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by
America's apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.
I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain ("bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") and the creepy
Romney ("Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe") were denounced by
the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions,
which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had
ended long ago (in 1991) (
but only on the Russian side ). I since have learned that in today's American political
system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American
democracy no longer exists. (And the
only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic
found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy
Carter later said on 28 July 2015 :
Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting
the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to
governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members."
But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of 'American
democracy', and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to 'justify' invading (or,
in Ukraine's case, overthrowing via a 'democratic revolution') their lands (allies of Russia)
such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.
Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine's
plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:
Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac
University poll published on March 22nd reported, "A total of 51 percent of voters say they
can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right 'almost all of the time' or 'most of
the time'" (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten
politicians), even after the CIA's rubber-stamping Bush's lies to invade Iraq, and after the
FBI's shameless performance on Hillary Clinton's privatized State Department emails even after
her
smashing their cell-phones with hammers , etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with
no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the
American public. Besides: ever since the CIA's founding, it has had an "Operation Gladio" that specializes in
organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they
existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American
dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?
For the people of
Iraq , and of Syria
, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives.
Trusting the 'intelligence' services of a dictatorship doesn't make any sense at all. They're
all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires -- not for any public, anywhere; not here,
not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can
produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.
So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it,
because it is very rare -- and the system operates to keep it that way.
Overthrowing Ukraine was an attempt to end Russia being the major power on the Black Sea and
establish it as a NATO lake to stop Russia from using the sea to aid Syria or Iran. That was
ruined when Putin seized Crimea, keeping the Russian naval base.
In fact, the destabilization of the Ukraine occurred at the dawn of the new century in 2004.
The Presidential election of that year between Victor Yuschenko and Victor Yanukovich
resulted initially in the victory of Yanukovich. However serious allegations regarding
electoral fraud were raised. This resulted in mass demonstrations in Kiev and other cities
throughout Ukraine.
A re-run was ordered and the second time around Yushchenko took the Presidency with 52% of
the vote to Yanukovich's 44%. Suffice it to say that prior to the re-run a number of shadowy
foreign NGOs – including the National Endowment for Democracy – were active in
promoting civic disobedience in a number of Ukrainian cities in west and central Ukraine.
Independence Square in the middle of Kiev was occupied after the first election which was
declared invalid. These events became known as the 'Orange Revolution'.
It would be misleading to assume that significant numbers of the protestors did not have a
valid case against Yanukovich in terms of corruption and self-serving. However, it was
equally true that many of the demonstrators' motives were somewhat less noble. Prior to the
election Yushchenko had promised his running mate Yulia Tymoshenko the position of Prime
Minister should he win the election. Thus throughout, the disturbances were a struggle
between the eastern and western oligarchs.
On the crucial question of the nature of these events, 'Peoples power' or 'revolutionary
coup' the issue remains undecided.
This notwithstanding the British historian David Lane of Emmanuel College Cambridge argued
that
"The 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine was widely considered to be an instance of the
'coloured revolutions' of 1989 engendered by democratic values and nascent civil societies in
the process of nation building. The extent to which the 'Orange Revolution' could be
considered a revolutionary event stimulated by civil society, or a different type of
political activity (a putsch, coup d'état), legitimated by elite-sponsored 'soft'
political power. Based on public opinion poll data and responses from focus groups, the
author contends that what began as an orchestrated protest election fraud developed into a
novel type of political activity -- a revolutionary coup d'état. It is contended that
the movement was divisive rather than integrative and did not enjoy widespread popular
support."
Which is about the nearest we will get to an authentic answer.
What followed, however, was a complete and corrupt shamble of opportunism, corruption and
self-serving misrule of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko who, after becoming involved in some dubious
energy deals was to become known as the 'Gas Princess'. These two paragons of democracy
eventually became bitter enemies and saw the return of Yanukovich after the Presidential
contest between her and Yanukovich in 2010 which Yanukovich narrowly won.
It's long been a truth that democracy in the US died a long time ago and the wealth and
power behind the POTUS, irrespective of who that might be, are mere puppets. Obama won his
presidency on outright lies and the crooked Clintons and Sarkozys of the US corrupt elite
serve no-one's interests but their own at the cost of the lives of Ukrainian Russian ethnics
and the Libyan, Iraqi and Syrian people. "Saving Syria's children" would require the removal
of the source of their suffering, which can be firmly laid at the door of murderous
Washington War Hawks, rent-a-gobs like Samantha Powers and Victoria Nuland(nee Kagan)and
corrupt MSM supporting the rogue state that is the USA.
"... Union Jackboot: What Your Media and Professors Don't Tell You About British Foreign Policy ..."
"... There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about that rationale? ..."
"... What about military threats? ..."
"... So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply. ..."
"... Brexit White Paper ..."
"... T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books. ..."
"... Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is ..."
"... The Rise and Fall of the British Empire ..."
"... Bolshevism and Imperial Sedition ..."
"... Power without Responsibility ..."
"... Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot ..."
"... Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community ..."
"... Vision for 2020 ..."
"... Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future ..."
"... The New Atlanticist ..."
"... The United Kingdom's relations with Russia ..."
Alford: There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about
that rationale?
Coles: There's no consensus, except among European and American elites. Europe and America are not the world.
There are a lot of issues to consider with regards to Russia. Is it a threat? If so to whom? What kind of threat is Russia? So
let's consider these questions carefully. As far as the British establishment is concerned, Russia is an ideological threat because
it is a major power with a substantial population. It's also self-reliant where oil and gas is concerned, unlike Britain. So there's
lots of potential for Russian political ideology to undermine Britain's status. In fact, there are European Council on Foreign Relations
papers saying that Putin's Russia presents an "ideological alternative" to the EU.
[i] And that's dangerous.
Britain, or more accurately its policymaking elites, have considered Russia a significant enemy for over a century. Under the
Tsar, the so-called Great Game was a battle for strategic resources, trading routes, and so on. The historian Lawrence James calls
this period the first Cold War, which went "hot" with the Crimean War (1853-56).
[ii] Britain had a mixed relationship with
the Tsars because, on the one hand, theirs' were repressive regimes and Britain tended to favour repressive regimes, hence their
brief alliance with Russia's enemy, the Ottomans. On the other hand, Russia was a strategic threat to Britain's imperial interests,
and thus the Crimean War (1853-56).
When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, beginning 1917, the relationship became much less ambiguous – Russians, and especially Bolsheviks,
were clearly the enemy. Their ideology posed a threat internally. So Winston Churchill, who began as a Liberal and became a Conservative,
considered the Labour Party, which was formed in 1900, as basically a front for Bolsheviks.
[iii] That shows the level of paranoia among
elites. The Labour Party, at least at the beginning, was a genuine, working man's political organisation – women couldn't vote then,
remember. So by associating this progressive, grassroots party representing the working classes as an ideological ally or even puppet
of the brutal Bolshevik regime, the Tories had an excuse to undermine the power of organised, working people. So you had the Zinoviev
letter in 1924, which we now know was a literal conspiracy between the secret services and elements of the Tory party to fabricate
a link between Labour and Moscow. And it famously cost Labour the general election, since the right-wing, privately-owned media ran
with the story as though it was real. It's an early example of fake news.
[iv]
That's the ideological threat that Russia has posed, historically. But where there's a threat, there's an opportunity. The British
elites exploited the "threat" then and as they do today by associating organised labour with evil Bolshevism and, in doing so, alienate
the lower classes from their own political interests. Suddenly, we've all got to be scared of Russia, just like in 1917. And let's
not forget that Britain used chemical weapons – M-Devices, which induced vomiting – against the Bolsheviks. Chemical weapons were
"the right medicine for the Bolshevist," in Churchill's words. This was in 1919, as part of the Allied invasion of Russia in support
of the White Army. [v]
So if we're talking about the historical balance of forces and cause and effect, Britain not Russia initiated the use of chemical
weapons against others. But this history is typically inverted to say that Russia poses a threat to the West, hence all the talk
about Novichok, the Skripals, and Dawn Sturgess, the civilian who supposedly came into contact with Novichok and died in hospital
a few days later.
The next question: What sort of threat is Russia? According to the US Army War College, since the collapse of the Soviet
Union and since pro-US, pro-"free market" President Boris Yeltsin resigned in 1999, Russia has pursued so-called economic nationalism.
And the US doesn't like this because markets suddenly get closed and taxes are raised against US corporations.
[vi] That's the real threat. But you can't
tell the public that: that we hate Russia because they aren't doing what we say. If you look through the military documents, you
can find almost nothing about security threats against the US in terms of Russian
expansion, except in the sense that "security" means operational freedom. You can find references to Russia's nuclear weapons,
though, which are described as defensive, designed "to counter US forces and weapons systems."
[vii] Try finding that on the BBC. I should
mention that even "defensive" nukes can be launched accidentally.
The real goal with regards to Russia is maintaining US economic hegemony and the culture of open "free markets" that goes with
it, while at the same time being protectionist in real life. (US protectionism didn't start under Trump, by the way.) Liberal media
like the New York Times run sarcastic articles about Russian state oil and gas being a front for Putin and his cronies.
And yes, that may be true. But what threat is Russia to the US if it has a corrupt government? The threat is closing its markets
to the US. The US is committed to what its military calls Full Spectrum Dominance. So the world needs to be run in a US-led neoliberal
order, in the words of the US military, "to protect US interests and investment."
[viii] But this cannot be done if you have
"economic nationalism," like China had until the "reforms" of the '70s and '80s, and still has today to some extent. Russia and China
aren't military threats. The global population on the whole knows this, even though the domestic US and British media say the opposite.
Alford: What about military threats?
Coles: The best sources you can get are the US military records. Straight from the horse's mouth. The military plans for war and
defence. They have contingencies for when political situations change. So they know what they're talking about. There's a massive
divide between reality, as understood from the military records, and media and political rhetoric. Assessments by the US Army War
College, for instance, said years ago that any moves by NATO to support a Western-backed government in Ukraine would provoke Russia
into annexing Crimea. They don't talk about Russia spontaneously invading Ukraine and annexing it, which is the image we get from
the media. The documents talk about Russia reacting to NATO provocation.
[ix]
If you look at a map, you see Russia surrounded by hostile NATO forces. The media don't discuss this dangerous and provocative
situation, except the occasional mention of, say, US-British-Polish war-gaming on the border with Russia. When they do mention it,
they say it's for "containment," the containment of Russia. But to contain something, the given thing has to be expanding. But the
US military – like the annual threat assessments to Congress – say that Russia's not expanding, except when provoked. So at the moment
as part of its NATO mission, the UK is training Polish and Ukrainian armed forces, has deployed troops in Poland and Estonia, and
is conducting military exercises with them.
[x]
Imagine if Scotland ceded from the UK and the Russians were on our border conducting military exercises, supposedly to deter a
British invasion of Scotland. That's what we're doing in Ukraine. Britain's moves are extremely dangerous. In the 1980s, the UK as
part of NATO conducted the exercise, Operation Able Archer, which envisaged troop build-ups between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries.
Now-declassified records show that the Russians briefly mistook this exercise for a real-world scenario. That could have escalated
into nuclear war. This is very serious. [xi]
But the biggest player is the USA. It's using the threat of force and a global architecture of hi-tech militarism to shape a neoliberal
order. Britain is slavishly following its lead. I doubt that Britain would position forces near Russia were it not for the USA. Successive
US administrations have or are building a missile system in Europe and Turkey. They say it's to deter Iran from firing Scud missiles
at Europe. But it's pointed at Russia. It's a radar system based in Romania and Turkey, with a battery of Patriot missiles based
in Poland. The stationing of missiles there provoked Russia into moving its mobile nuclear weapons up to the border in its Kaliningrad
exclave, as it warned it would do in 2008.
[xii] Try to find any coverage of that in the media, except for a few articles in the print media here or there. If Western media
were interested in survival, there would be regular headlines: "NATO provoking Russia."
But the situation in Ukraine is really the tipping point. Consider the equivalent. Imagine if Russia was conducting military exercises
with Canada or Mexico, and building bases there. How would the US react? It would be considered an extreme threat, a violation of
the UN Charter, which prohibits threats against sovereign states.
Alford: So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never
going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply.
Coles: There's no morality involved. States are abstract, amorphous entities comprised of dominant minorities and subjugated majorities
who are conditioned to believe that they are relatively free and prosperous. The elites of those states act both in their self-interests
– career, peer-pressure, kickbacks, and so on – and in the interests of their class, which is of course tied to international relations
because their class thrives on profiting from resource exploitation. So you can't talk about morality in this context. Only individuals
can behave morally. The state is made up of individuals, of course, but they're acting against the interests of the majority. As
we speak, they are acting immorally – or at least amorally – but creating the geopolitical conditions that imperil each
and every one of us.
As for invasion, we're not going to invade Russia. This isn't 1918. Russia has nuclear weapons and can deter an invasion. But
that's not the point. Do we want to de-escalate an already tense geopolitical situation or make it worse to the point where an accident
happens? So while it's not about invading Russia directly, the issue is about attacking what are called Russia's "national interests."
Russia's "national interests" are the same as the elites' of the UK. National interest doesn't mean the interests of the public.
It means the interests of the policymaking establishment and the corporations. For example, the Theresa May government sacrificed
its own credibility to ensure that its Brexit White Paper (2018) appeased both the interests of the food and manufacturing
industries that want a soft Brexit – easy trade with the EU – and the financial services sector which wants a hard Brexit – freedom
from EU regulation. Everyone else be damned. That's the "national interest."
So for its real "national interest," Russia wants to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence because its oil and gas to Europe
pass through Ukraine. About 80% of Russia's export economy is in the oil and gas sector. It's already had serious political tensions
with Ukraine, which on several occasions hasn't paid its energy bills, so Russia has cut supplies. If Europe can bump Ukraine into
its own sphere of influence it has more leverage over Russia. This is practically admitted in Parliamentary discussions by Foreign
Office ministers, and so forth. [xiii]
Again, omitted by the media. Also, remember that plenty of ethnic Russians live in eastern Ukraine. In addition, Russia has a naval
base in Crimea. That's not to excuse its illegal action in annexing Ukraine, it's to highlight the realpolitik missing in
the media's coverage of the situation.
T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books.
Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is
Union Jackboot(Até Books).
[ii] 'Anglo-Russian relations were severely
strained; what was in effect a cold war lasted from the late 1820s to the beginning of the next century'. The Crimean War seems to
have set a precedent for today. James writes:
[It] was an imperial war, the only one fought by Britain against a European power during the nineteenth century, although some
would have regarded Russia as essentially an Asiatic power. No territory was at stake; the war was undertaken solely to guarantee
British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and, indirectly, to forestall any threat to India which might have followed Russia
replacing Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East.
Lawrence James (1997) The Rise and Fall of the British Empire London: Abacus, pp. 180-82.
All these strikes and rumours of strikes and threats of strikes and loss and suffering caused by them; all this talk of revolution
and "direct action" have deeply offended most of the British people. There is a growing feeling that a considerable section of
organized Labour is trying to tyrannize over the whole public and to bully them into submission, not by argument, not by recognized
political measures, but by brute force
But if we can do little for Russia [under the Bolsheviks], we can do much for Britain. We do not want any of these experiments
here
Whether it is the Irish murder gang or the Egyptian vengeance society, or the seditious extremists in India, or the arch-traitors
we have at home, they will feel the weight of the British arm.
A settlement of relations between the two countries [UK and Russia] will assist in the revolutionising of the international
and British proletariat, [and] make it possible for us to extend and develop the propaganda and ideas of Leninism in England and
the colonies.
It also says that 'British workmen' have 'inclinations to compromise' and that rapprochement will eventually lead to domestic
'[a]rmed warfare'. It was leaked by the services to the Conservative party and then to the media. Richard Norton-Taylor (1999) 'Zinoviev
letter was dirty trick by MI6' Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/04/uk.politicalnews6
and Louise Jury (1999) 'Official Zinoviev letter was forged' Independenthttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/official-zinoviev-letter-was-forged-1068600.html
. For media coverage at the time, see James Curran and Jean Seaton (1997) Power without Responsibility London: Routledge,
p. 52.
[v] Paul F. Walker (2017) 'A Century
of Chemical Warfare: Building a World Free of Chemical Weapons' Conference: One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment,
Consequences pp. 379-400 and Giles Milton (2013) Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot
London: Hodder, eBook.
[vi] 'The Russian Federation has shown
repeatedly that common values play almost no role in its consideration of its trading partners', meaning the US and EU. 'It often
builds relationships with countries that most openly thwart Western values of free markets and democracy', notably Iran and Venezuela.
'In this regard, the Russian Federation behaves like "Russia Incorporated." It uses its re-nationalized industries to further its
wealth and influence, the latter often at the expense of the EU and the U.S.'. Colonel Richard J. Anderson (2008) 'A History of President
Putin's Campaign to Re-Nationalize Industry and the Implications for Russian Reform and Foreign Policy' Senior Service College, US
Army War College, Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 52.
[vii] Daniel R. Coats (2017) Statement
for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington,
DC: Office of the Director of
[ix] The document also says: 'a replay
of the West-sponsored coup against pro-Russian elites could result in a split, or indeed multiple splits, of the failed Ukraine,
which would open a door for NATO intervention'.Pavel K. Baev (2011) 'Russia's security relations with the United States: Futures
planned and unplanned' in Stephen J. Blank (ed.) Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future Strategic Studies Institute
Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 170, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1087.pdf.
[xi] For example, Nate Jones, Thomas
Blanton and Christian F. Ostermann (2016) 'Able Archer 83: The Secret History' Nuclear Proliferation International History Project
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/able-archer-83-the-secret-history
.
[xii] It was reported in the ultra-right,
neo-con press at the time that:
[Russian] President Dmitri Medvedev announced in his first state-of-the-nation address plans to deploy the short-range SS-26
("Iskander") missiles in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad if the U.S. goes ahead with its European Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS). Medvedev told parliament that the deployment would "neutralize" U.S. plans for a missile defense shield based in
Poland and the Czech Republic [now in Romania), which the U.S. claims as vital in defending against missile attacks from 'rogue
states' such as Iran.
Neil Leslie (2008) 'The Kaliningrad Missile Crisis' The New Atlanticist , available at http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-kaliningrad-missile-crisis.
[xiii] For example, a Parliamentary
inquiry into British-Russian relations says of the newly-imposed US-British ally in Ukraine:
President Poroshenko's Government is more openly committed to economic reform and anti-corruption than any previous Ukrainian
Administration. The reform agenda has made considerable progress and has enjoyed some successes including police reform, liberalisation
of the energy market and the launch of an online platform for government procurement
The annexation of Crimea also resulted in a ban on importing products from Crimea, on investing in or providing services linked
to tourism and on exporting certain goods for use in the transport, telecoms and energy sectors.
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/08/285043.htm
"Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018,
determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of
1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or
biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or
biological weapons against its own nationals.
Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect
upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22,
2018"
.....
Under the law, Russia had to end the use of the nerve agent Novichok, which was used in
the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March, commit to not using
chemical weapons against its own people, and allow on-site inspections by agencies like the
United Nations.
"Today, the department informed Congress we could not certify that the Russian
Federation met the conditions," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a
statement."
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.
The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.
Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:
"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."
This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.
Selling plutocracy
There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social
media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not
simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by
their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media
class expected.
Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much
to lose.
But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political
scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have
kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an
intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.
The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their
unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell
wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction;
the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of
wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts
funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary
austerity; and so on.
A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially
in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like
identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule
dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and
rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.
Fear of the domino effect
Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a
far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They
prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect
their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class
privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not
control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms
manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that
smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the
US.
Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because
powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the
key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and
without – from the moment of their election.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined
to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a
much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.
The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist
governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no
interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of
the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more
violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to
overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will
stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile,
Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with
neoliberalism.
Immune system
If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media
gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social
democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social
media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also
the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years
– since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep
someone like him from power.
The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it
has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.
Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the
voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it
refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a
Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the
façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies
were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like
Corbyn much earlier.
Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy
the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even
treasonous.
But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success,
the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's
defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's
Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to
erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.
Slash-and-burn politics
Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life,
because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different
way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he
articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over
us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.
The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep
sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you
get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.
It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion
of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself
ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that
the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has
fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser
instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is
impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.
Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their
leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They
have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our
only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.
Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of
the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media
have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have
taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate
and disillusioned public.
Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper
steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer
society, who prioritises mending what is broken.
The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their
credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him.
Bolsonaro is their monster.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
I'm not surprised that you are such a fine shot with his harpoon considering your naval
background, Mark! The UK is slowly sinking to its appropriate level of incompetence and
self-delusion with the likes of former PM Dave Cameron declaring that he is 'shit bored' and
would like to return to cabinet, preferably as Foreign Minister. That could be arranged, but
as Foreign minister in Libya.
Still, the whole 'Russian corrupting in Britain' is the British government's perception
management at its finest. As someone recently posted on the last thread, a Spanish case
against RUSSIAN MAFIA collapsed for lack of evidenceafter ten years , which I
suspect was partly provided by British Intelligence paid organized crime experts from Russia
like Litvenenko & Skripal. Who's been bilked then?
Yes, this is a classic case of 'LOOK OVER THERE!' rather than the billions upon billions
sunk in to London by the UK and the west's bestest Gulf buddies, you know, the one's who fear
not their exposure for outrageous human rights abuses on a genocidal scale such as in Yemen,
and a much smaller scale with the likes of their own citizens, sic Kashoggi. But, Chelsea
& Westminster are such a fundamental part of British Life (coz its London, innit?) and
does very well for itself. I have to admit, it is (mostly) nice around there where you can
take a stroll along the Embankment, wander around Hyde Park and visit the museums.
"Like in the Wild West, betting in the saloon is also common when it comes to Syria. The US
State Department under Obama placed all its bets on some entity they invented, which they
liked to call "moderate rebels" (why not "respectable terrorists" or "polite criminals"?).
They lost. Numerous left-wing academics signed on to regime change years ago, and because
they only pretend to be seasoned analysts for their day jobs, they did not foresee the
collapse of the anti-government forces in Syria. That list included noted "post-colonial"
scholars and anthropologists, united in their belief in "democracy promotion" and remaking
Syria into something palatable to them, with the right leaders in place. Five years later and
a smaller group -- including feminists like Gloria Steinem and Judith Butler, anarchists like
Noam Chomsky and the anthropologist David Graeber, the Marxist David Harvey, and advocates of
recolonization like Michael Walzer -- placed their bets on socialist Kurdish militias,
presumably increasing the value of their bet by the important sign value of their brand name
authority. Ironically, in the process of reimagining legendary Rojava as the site of a second
Spanish Civil War, they were openly collaborating with Donald Trump (not naming him directly,
since "the US government" was more convenient). These signatories were thus complicit with
the very same commander-in-chief of the armed forces they were calling on for support of
Syrian Kurds. They wanted "the US government," whose President is Donald Trump, to impose
sanctions on Turkey, and to develop a foreign policy that put Kurdish interests at the
forefront. You can be sure that, elsewhere, in front of different crowds, they return to "the
Resistance" by puffing up their little chests and sounding all "anti-Trump" -- but when it
came to cheering their favourite band of ethnic anarchists, they could dispense with
appearances. Less "prestigious" characters, publishing in a less "prestigious" outlet,
countered the call to "defend Rojava", a call which appropriated "progressive" politics for
the cause of imperialism (thus reigniting an old marriage). (David Harvey, by the way, having
cashed in on abundant sales of his volume, The New Imperialism, has recently changed his
mind: he has decided that imperialism is merely a metaphor, "rather than anything real". Out
of curiosity, we have to wonder if "capitalism" is also a metaphor, rather than anything
real, seeing how Marxists have linked capitalism with imperialism. Perhaps even socialism is
a metaphor, rather than anything real."
This Canadian has a lot to say well worth reading!!!!!
"... Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. ..."
"... Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003. ..."
"... Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years. ..."
On Wednesday, October 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian liberal oppositionist, was interviewed by Keith Gessen, editor
of the n+1 magazine, in an event hosted by Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and
Eastern Europe. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i.e.,
an imperialist-orchestrated and funded movement of a section of the oligarchy and upper middle class to topple the Putin regime,
similar to those that have taken place in Ukraine and Georgia.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the many shadowy figures of Russian politics who, while little known to most people inside or outside
Russia, are playing a key role in directing and supporting the US anti-Russia policy and the course of the Russian pro-US liberal
opposition. The son of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Sr., who was a major figure in the oligarch-controlled Russian media under Boris Yeltsin
in the 1990s, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Jr. worked for many years as the right-hand man of Boris Nemtsov, one of Yeltsin's key allies
in the 1990s and a right-wing political opponent of Putin, who was assassinated in 2015 under murky circumstances.
Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets
Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. He has lobbied
for the adoption of similar legislation by governments throughout the world. Through this work, Kara-Murza also became close to the
late John McCain, one of Washington's foremost supporters of "color revolutions" throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union.
In August, Kara-Murza served as a pallbearer at McCain's funeral, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and the actor Warren
Beatty.
Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become
one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003.
In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years. And this
is precisely what he was invited to speak on with the self-styled leftist and Russia expert Keith Gessen, founding editor of the
n+1 magazine, one of the most popular magazines among pseudo-left circles. (Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's
Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years.)
The event started with Keith Gessen asking Kara-Murza about the
assassination of Boris Nemtsov which the
latter, of course, attributed to the Kremlin. For most of the discussion, however, Kara-Murza detailed his involvement in the preparations
for a color revolution in Russia.
Kara-Murza insisted that "the history of Russia teaches us that big political changes in our country can start quickly and unexpectedly."
He referred to both the 1905 Revolution and the February Revolution of 1917, which, as Kara-Murza pointed out, even took Lenin by
surprise, and then the collapse of the USSR "in three days" in 1991. "This is how things happen in Russia", he insisted, and "the
problem with this is that nobody is prepared. We [at the Open Russia Foundation] see it as our mission to begin those preparations
for future change now. We cannot afford to not be ready again. Most of the things we do inside of Russia is targeted at preparing
for this future transition."
The Open Russia Foundation, he continued, had 25 regional branches and a series of working groups which were already elaborating
plans for political reforms and constitutional changes for the post-Putin period. Furthermore, they were focusing on "work with the
new generation, the people who will be in charge of Russia" through training and education programs. Lastly, they were doing "international"
work, which he himself was in charge of, which included "outreach" directed, again, at preparing the "future transition."
When later asked by an audience member how he saw the future of Russia in the next few decades, he declared that this change would
come not within the next few decades, but within the next few years.
When he was asked from the audience whether the latest pension reform, which is opposed by over 90 percent of the population,
could trigger the kind of "sudden change" he was expecting, Kara-Murza said: "It could but it doesn't have to. There is always the
argument that it's [going to be] something of a socio-economic nature. Actually, if we look at the two decades of Putin, the peak
of the protests was in December 2011 when the middle class was booming. It was about dignity, it had nothing do to with social issues.
The trigger will not be necessarily economic."
He continued, "The only really shaky point [for Putin] was when so many people felt insulted that the government was wiping its
feet over them. I think it's going to be something like that. A color revolution of dignity," like the events in Ukraine in 2014.
In other words, what Kara-Murza and the Open Russia Foundation are working on is the promotion of a right-wing middle-class movement
similar to the Maidan in Ukraine, which would provide the basis for a coup to topple the current government.
The key figures and mechanisms for such a "color revolution" were also addressed at some length. Keith Gessen asked how Kara-Murza
viewed the campaign of the blogger Alexei Navalny, who, as the WSWS has written, is a
far-right, pro-US figure who cloaks his right-wing
program behind murky phrases about corruption. Just how fraudulent and politically calculated this focus is became clear in the discussion
when Keith Gessen asked whether Navalny's focus on corruption as the center of his political platform was "a winning platform." Kara-Murza
responded: "Yes, it is. Corruption is such a widely understandable issue. It's an issue that everybody is aware of."
In the discussion, a graduate student from Harriman asked whether the Open Russia Foundation had a "particular road map" for what
to do when the "sudden event" Kara-Murza expected actually occurred. Kara-Murza replied: "If there were a model, it would be something
like the Polish roundtable [of 1989]. The way we want a transition to happen in Russia is peaceful and smooth. We don't want a violent
revolution. Russia has had enough revolutions. The problem is that the people who are in power today are doing everything for a revolution
to occur."
Then, he went into the figures who would be included in such a roundtable. "Of course, Boris Nemtsov would have been at the roundtable",
but, he assured his audience, there were many others. The figures he named were: Yevgeni Roizman, the mayor of Yekaterinburg, who
is a notorious far-right-winger, with deep ties to the local mafia. In Russia, he became known above all through his alleged "drug"
relief program, which has involved heavy physical abuse of drug addicts.
He also named Galina Shirshina, a member of the liberal opposition party Yabloko (which Nemtsov led until his assassination) as
well as Lev Shlosberg, a local politician in Pskov who is also a leading member of "Yabloko." Finally, Kara-Murza named Dmitri Gudkov,
who is heading the opposition "Party of Changes" with Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak, who
ran as a presidential candidate this year
.
"Navalny and Khodorkovsky would obviously also be at the roundtable", Kara-Murza added. When Gessen asked "What about the Communists?"
Kara-Murza said that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Stalinist and National Bolshevik "Left Front", may also hope for a seat at
the roundtable. "We have very different views, but we have a good personal relationship. He's a decent human being, politically and
on a human level."
Then, he added, "there are also many nationalists who are not controlled by the Kremlin" and who could join the roundtable. Throughout
the event, Kara-Murza repeated that he and his allies were the true patriots and Russian nationalists, as opposed to Putin and the
oligarchs and officials around him. "I just don't want to bore everyone with a long list of names," he said, as he concluded his
enumeration of prospective of roundtable participants.
Like all Russian liberal oppositionists, Kara-Murza makes a hue and cry about rigged elections under Putin. Yet at no point did
he even mention the possibility of an election before or after such a "roundtable," the participants of which have most evidently
already been discussed and set.
There could hardly be a more open statement about the complicity of the so called opposition forces in Russian in a premeditated,
US-backed plot to overthrow the Putin regime and install another, more pro-US, right-wing government in its place.
Kara-Murza speaks for a section of the oligarchy which not only seeks to gain control over the social and economic wealth of Russia,
but also fears that a continuation of the Putin regime will threaten not only Russia's geopolitical position, but also social revolution.
They see their main goal in making sure that a reshuffling within the oligarchy and upper middle class takes place, to assure both
a reorientation of Russian foreign policy more directly in line with the interests of imperialism, and the ongoing suppression of
the working class.
The complete indifference toward the implications of these policies for the masses of working people in Russia was at full display
when Kara-Murza defended the process of capitalist restoration and the 1990s as time when Russia was actually make headway on the
world stage: Russia was included in the G8 and finally internationally recognized, Kara-Murza stressed.
He contemptuously dismissed any criticism of the 1990s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s." The fact
that the Russian economy experienced the worst collapse recorded in modern history for peacetime; that life expectancy plummeted,
that hundreds of thousands committed suicide and were driven into substance abuse and that workers were going without pay for months
and years, all of this is evidently of no concern to him.
Underlining the recklessness of the whole operation, the question of the potential consequences of a "color revolution" was not
even raised. But anyone who looks at the past three decades of US foreign policy knows where this type of intervention of leads:
civil war, ethnic strife, dictatorial regimes, and decades of economic, social and economic crisis. In the case of Russia, a "color
revolution" would most likely mean the violent break-up of the Russian Federation -- many opposition leaders in fact argue for different
borders of Russia. It would, moreover, raise the very immediate danger of a nuclear catastrophe: what if a section of the military
resorts to the vast nuclear arsenal of Russia to defend its interests? And what will the US military and NATO do if a color revolution
underway in Russia suddenly threatens to go astray? Will they intervene directly militarily?
The involvement of Keith Gessen in this dubious event is revealing. At no point did he raise something akin to a critical question.
His role was nothing but to ask polite questions and provide Kara-Murza with a platform. A self-styled leftist, Gessen has translated
and published the writings of Kirill Medvedev, a leading figure in the Russian Socialist Movement (RSM), a Pabloite formation in
Russia. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left. In 2014, the
RSM fully backed the far-right coup in Kiev. In Russia itself, the RSM has long shifted toward full support for Alexei Navalny's
right-wing "anti-corruption campaign," ignoring or dismissing his history of support for Russian fascism and racism. The role of
Gessen in this event is emblematic of the role of these forces as handmaidens US and European imperialism.
It was befitting for Columbia University's Harriman Institute to host this event: the first interdisciplinary Russia institute
to be formed after the beginning of the Cold War, it has historically been associated with US imperialist plotting against first
the Soviet Union and then Russia. To this day, the Harriman Institute, which is a non-profit, functions primarily as a think tank
as well as an educational and recruiting center for Washington's foreign policy establishment and the CIA.
For much of its existence, the Harriman Institute was dominated by the figure and work of
Zbigniew Brzezinski who, for over half a
century, played a central role in elaborating the world strategy and justifying the war crimes of US imperialism. One of Brzezinski's
political trademarks was his advocacy for fostering political opposition and insurrections in the Soviet Union, to undermine the
regime and thus fight what he saw as one of the US's main competitors for the control of Eurasia. The "color revolution" strategy
of US imperialism since 1991 stands in precisely this tradition. Now as then, far-right forces within the elites and fake left tendencies
are the props of imperialism "on the ground."
Events like the one at Columbia reveal much about the state of world politics. "Color revolutions" which will impact the lives
of hundreds of millions and threaten civil and all-out nuclear war, are being discussed and plotted behind the exclusive doors of
an Ivy League institution with an audience of some 50 people, most of whom are graduate students and professors who, one may assume,
either already are on the payroll of the CIA and the State Department or seeking to get there.
The Putin regime offers no alternative to these imperialist machinations. Like the sections of the oligarchy that Kara-Murza speaks
for, Putin and his cronies have emerged out of and enriched themselves on the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Union which
was carried by the Stalinist bureaucracy hand-in-gloves with imperialism. It considers not imperialism, but the Russian working class
to be its main enemy, and, hence, responds to every imperialist provocation is a response of desperate attempts to find a deal with
imperialism, largely behind closed doors, and the promotion of nationalism and militarism at home.
This sinister event is a warning to the international working class about the advanced preparations for the next step in the efforts
of US imperialism to topple the Putin regime and bring the resources of Russia under its direct control: it is high time for workers
both in the US and in Russia to intervene in politics on an independent basis to put an end to these dangerous conspiracies of imperialism
through the struggle for socialism.
Looks like Iran was "Skripaled". Intelligence agencies are now capable to perform false flag operation in thier
home countries and blame other government with absolute impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe. ..."
"... It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State. ..."
"... The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents. ..."
"... Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested and prosecuted. ..."
"... On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group ..."
"... It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran ..."
"... The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Lřkke Rasmussen. Both are hawks. ..."
"... Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel ..."
"... Iran's foreign minister accuses Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such operations. ..."
"... Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad ..."
"... "Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently. ..."
"... It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?" ..."
Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe.
In September a terror attack killed some 30 people in Iran. Two entities, an Arab separatist movement as well as the Islamic State
terror group ISIS, took responsibility. After an investigation Iran found that it was ISIS which was responsible. It took revenge
against the identified culprits.
Six weeks later Denmark claims, without providing evidence, that Iran tried to assassinate a leader of the Arab separatist movement
over the incident. Iran denies any such attempt. The right wing Danish government uses the claim to urge other European countries
to sanction Iran.
It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over
an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State.
The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination
plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents.
The details:
On September 22 gunmen
killed 29 and wounded
more than 70 participants and onlookers of a veterans day parade in Ahvaz, Iran:
Three of the attackers were gunned down during clashes with the security forces and one other was arrested, news agencies reported.
...
"The terrorists disguised as Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basiji (volunteer) forces opened fire to the authority
and people from behind the stand during the parade," the governor of Khuzestan, Gholam-Reza Shariati, said, according to IRNA.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also referred to the attack as terrorism. Nauert said on Saturday, "We stand
with the Iranian people against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism and express our sympathy to them at this terrible time".
On 22 September 2018, Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility for the 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack in comments to UK-based
Iran International TV. He said that his group Ahvaz National Resistance, a part of Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of
Ahvaz, has "no choice but to resist." On 23 September, a statement made in The Hague, Netherlands, on the ASMLA website, denied
responsibility for the attack, saying that the claim was made by a "group that was expelled from the organization since 2015."
After Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility Iran
accused Saudi Arabia
of involvement in the attack:
IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif said the attackers were affiliated with a terrorist group supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran's state-run
Press TV said.
"The individuals who fired at the people and the armed forces during the parade are connected to the al-Ahvaziya group which
is fed by Saudi Arabia," Sharif said. Saudi Arabia has yet to respond to the allegations.
Several years ago ASMLA aka Al-Ahvaziya
committed several
terror attacks in Iran. Its leaders live in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Iran immediately reminded
those countries of their duties:
Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of the Netherlands and Denmark, along with a senior British diplomat on Saturday
to issue a strong protest the attack, Iran's state-run media reports.
Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about
the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested
and prosecuted.
According to IRNA, Ghasemi said "it is unacceptable" that members of a terrorist group be allowed in those countries and not
be included on the European Union's terror list only because they have not committed crimes on European soil.
A few days later though, Iran concluded that the attack was not committed by the Ahvaz movement, but by the Islamic State. On
October 1 it responded with a missile salvo
that hit Islamic State facilities in Syria:
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced they have bombed a site in eastern Syria in retaliation to the terrorist
attack against a military parade in Iranian Ahvaz 10 days ago.
...
The IRGC confirmed that the targeted terrorist group was behind the terror attack that killed over a dozen and injured many
more in the city of Ahvaz.
An additional operation against the planers of the attack
took place on October 15 in Iraq:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday they had killed the "mastermind" behind an attack on a military parade in the Iranian
city of Ahvaz last month which left 25 people dead, nearly half of them members of the Guards.
The Guards said in a statement published on state media their forces had killed a man named Abu Zaha and four other militants
in Diyala province in Iraq. One news website run by Iran's state television said Abu Zaha was a member of Islamic State.
That closed the issue for Iran.
On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of
an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group:
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described the alleged planned assassination by Iran of an exiled separatist leader
in Denmark as "totally unacceptable"
The Iranian ambassador to Copenhagen was summoned to the foreign ministry over the allegations. A Norwegian citizen of Iranian
origin was arrested in Sweden on 21 October in connection with the alleged plan. The man denies the charges. Authorities conducted
a massive manhunt on 28 September which led to road closures, trains and ferries being cancelled, and bridges being shut across
Denmark.
On Tuesday, Danish intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen confirmed the measures had been taken to prevent the alleged plot.
The Danish intelligence accused the Norwegian citizens of taking pictures of a house where one of the ASMLA leader lives. It provide
no evidence for its claims. Iran rejected the accusations:
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said such "biased reports" and allegations pursued " the enemy's plots and conspiracies"
to harm the developing relations between Iran and Europe , according to Tasnim news agency.
It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to
sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran:
Mr Rasmussen said, after a meeting with his British counterpart Theresa May in Oslo, that he appreciated her support. "In close
collaboration with UK and other countries we will stand up to Iran," he tweeted. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said Denmark
would discuss further actions with European partners in the coming days.
The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, congratulated
Denmark on arresting "an Iranian regime assassin".
The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current
Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Lřkke
Rasmussen. Both are hawks.
Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel:
BREAKING: Israeli Mossad gave Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) the information about the assassination attempt
planned by Iranian intelligence service against the leader of the Iranian opposition organization ASMLA, Israeli official tells
me
Well - if Israeli officials says Iran did something bad that will surely be true. (Not.)
Iran's foreign minister
accuses
Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran :
Denmark's accusations against Iran followed the unveiling of another suspected Iranian plot to target a Paris rally by an opposition
group in June. According to Israeli reports, the Mossad helped thwart that attack as well , which led to the arrest of several
Iranians in Europe, including a diplomat.
The earlier plot
involved two members of the anti-Iranian terror cult MEK in Belgium who were caught with explosives that they allegedly wanted
to use to blow up a MEK conference in Paris:
The allegation that an Iranian operative plotted an attack on French soil is jeopardizing Europe's support for the accord. As
U.S. and Israeli officials ramp up pressure on Europe to sever ties with Tehran, they have cited it as a reason why Mr. Macron
and other leaders should end their support for the deal.
On Tuesday, Denmark announced it had foiled an Iranian operation to kill a dissident, turning up the pressure on Europe to
harden its posture toward Tehran. A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said Iran had no involvement in the case.
The most interesting question about such plots is always "Cui bono?". Who benefits from these incidents?
Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten
its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle
some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such
operations.
Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases
some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad
.
But is it really Israel who set up these incidents? Both serve U.S. interest just as much. It is no secret that the U.S. wants
to prevent European subversion of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
In June 2017 the Trump administration
installed
a new CIA group to plot and launch undercover operations against Iran. It is led by its most ruthless operator:
He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the
hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.
Now the official, Michael D'Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.'s Iran operations, according to current and former
intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the
president took against Iran during his campaign.
Mr. D'Andrea's new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations
under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said.
A year later the same Mike Pompeo, now Secretary of State, created the
Iran Action Group within
the State Department. It is a complementary entity to the CIA group. Little has been published about the action both groups have
taken so far. What has Ayatollah Mike done since he set up shop 18 month ago?
It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role. The U.S. can hardly admit that it is faking terrorist incidents in Europe while the overrated Mossad loves
to take credit for everything that happens on this world.
Europe has no interest in supporting or escalating Trump's war on Iran. EU countries should demand hard evidence from Denmark
and other accusers of Iran and should not act on the basis of only vague accusations.
Posted by b on November 1, 2018 at 10:30 AM |
Permalink
Comments Iran should sue the puppet state Denmark. End of story
Israel is regarded as a beneficent country with no ulterior motives by western governments and media. Every time, you can count
on like clockwork, no matter how outrageous or self serving the claim.
thanks b.. i agree with your analysis here.. the usa needs to keep its puppet states. on a string... cia has a long history of
these types of actions.. i am surprised at how easily or convenient it is for the puppets to continue as puppets.. and of course
as we approach the nov 5 th financial santion bs from the evil empire that claims equality for all (after usa and israel are cared
for) will be trying to alienate the rest of the world to iran as much as possible.. the timing here is in line with that goal
post.. very predictible, just like our local shill who will claim it is iran as opposed to usa-israel-ksa and etc, that pull this
shit regularly.. the same ugly crew responsible for supporting terrorism as witnessed in syria, yemen and etc further back are
at work here... predictible..
i suspect more bs to come from these same state sponsored liars....
The complete and utter amorality of the West on display yet again, as if we needed any more examples. There is certainly compelling
evidence that a group of "extremists" are endangering all of humanity and the entire planet, the only problem for Western MSM
in reporting on this is that those "extremists" are in fact the ruling elites of the West and their "allies" in Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
"Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like
with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently.
I thought the War on Terror dictated that the whole world was the battlefield. What's the difference between Iran trying to take
down a terrorist in Denmark and the US trying to take one down in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa?
It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences.
Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?"
Please note the last listed "coincidence."
Also on Zarif's Twitter is a video segment of his interview with Face The Nation and other important announcements.
This is what he said about the Pittsburg attack:
"Extremism and terrorism know no race or religion, and must be condemned in all cases. The world deserves better than to
have to live with weaponized demagoguery. Thoughts and prayers with victims of terrorist attack on Pittsburgh synagogue and
their loved ones." [My Emphasis]
The nations of the world have had the following choice to make for awhile now, and I'd say the choice can no longer be kicked
down the road:
Either blindly follow the two prevaricating Outlaw Nations--United States and Israel--or stand with Russia, China, and others
in supporting proven truths and upholding the fundamental principles of International Law as expressed via the UN Charter. In
other words, it's past time to review GW Bush's dicta: Either you're with us or against us--abet the lawbreakers or join the posse
to contain them.
The evil empire and their bought minions are infecting the globe. They will never stop until their domination by organised $ brings
surfs everywhere under their control.
These forces do not believe in a "middle class", they believe the wealthiest should rule because it creates a more stable and
predictable society..
A society Charles Dickens wrote about. Wonderful...
One needs a high level of stupid among the western population to sell bull s... by the buckets. But then again, that is US and
allies. As was said: Too stupid to realize they are stupid. In the US the most trusted institution is the military. Proof enough?
about MEK, the terrorist group... our shithead exprime minister steven harper was singing the praises of them the past month....
apparenlty stevie just can't do enough for israel and zionism, and if the canuck media which is essentialy bought and paid for
by the same interests has its way, we will get a similar insane gov't after trudeau light is finished his term... apparently canucks
are one cycle behind the usa in electing its leaders... it will be a trump type israel subservient toad for next pm of cauckistan...
i sure wish the western political players weren't so beholden to neoliberalism. and we had someone even half the leader putin
is.... but, we don't....
East by not responding strongly to West provocations is begging for war.
East by crying for West for cooperation is begging for war.
And since East and West are controlled by the same same cabal - war is inevitable.
Just ask Mr. Kissinger...
The Edomites, who after Rome's extermination of the remnant of the House of Israel at Jerusalem began calling themselves "Jews"
for "controlled opposition" for "the real Anti-Christ" "engine for enslaving mankind" we founded God's America to escape, become
sex perverts, including incesting Sabbatean Frankists - hence the Manchu-baldness, as a consequence of their satanic cult's ritual
sodomy of innocent toddlers while being rabbinically inculcated as "gods chosen by God to rule the world."
Wow. Thank You for this one. After reading this excellent assessment of the present situation, of which we might only know the
most shallow facts, I had to do a search (DDG) about Iran during the time of the first openly Fascist Europe - being described
as having emanated from 3rd-Reich-Germany and Italy.
I was unaware that there was an
Anglo-Soviet
Invasion of Iran , because of the alleged sympathy of the Shah's Iran with Nazi-Germany. The Brits and the Russians were buddies
then and wanted to prevent that Iranian oil is accessible to Nazi-Germany.
All over sudden I am confused that the Brits invaded shoulder to shoulder with Soviet forces Iran - while now, besides delivering
the political ham theater of saber rattling against Russia, supporting terror and instigating sanctions against Iran again.
To make things much worse to comprehend, one is to wonder how many European countries actually did join Nazi Germany without
much ado at the time, based on the fact that the Scandinavians and the Netherlands are now as Fascist as Nazi Germany was during
its short 1000 years of glory. Does anybody else get the impression that this was always this way? That we have been lied to about
everything regarding Fascism? That it was never Fascism that was the problem in Europe - as it appears to do very well there -
but a strong Germany that could have easily governed its territory via effective 'bureaucracy'. All of Europe.
The truth is, that the stench of Fascism today, was already stinking badly in the 20th century, but was never really a problem.
The problem were the Germans. And somehow, the Germans want to continue to have economic ties with Iran. Is this how history repeats
itself - minus the marching Soviet/Russian and British buddy forces?
How many false flag operations have been invoked to explain unpopular events in recent years? The British government was behind
the attempted murder of Skripal. All of the chemical attacks launched against the opposition in Syria were false flag operations
to bring the US into the war (which amounted to nothing burgers anyway). Ray McGovern hypothesized the US used the Vault 7 tools
as a false flag to blame Russia for the DNC hack. Is there any end to false flag speculation?
Who cares if the Iranians deny the charge? That means absolutely nothing. Russia has been lying and denying for years. Additionally,
that Mossad would have provided the information to Denmark and France is completely logical since they have been collecting intelligence
on Iran for years - and have been dealing with Iranian-supported terrorists for decades.
There is no evidence for a false flag operation. Sure it's a possibility (it's always a possibility), but the current evidence
points toward Iranian plans to murder dissidents. The British were right about Skripal. The Dutch were right about MH17. Ray McGovern
was wrong about the CIA hacking the DNC - and the likely result of this investigation is that Iran planned to murder a couple
of dissidents. In lieu of the stupidity exhibited by the Saudis in the Khashoggi murder, it's completely believable.
With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US.
Denmark has become another UK, willing to perform any act and light any fuse against Russia, Iran or any nation that challenges
the hegemony of US, EU and NATO.
Just a subservient vassal, self-degradating. I would compare Denmark to a whore, but that defames those poor souls.
The Danes are like Brits. There, I said it. Nothing worse than the official scumbags of Britain. Pity the good folks of both
countries.
Such a little country desperately trying to hide their true Nazi soul, fabricating events and promulgating Fake News and bogus
Intel.
In service to big Hegemon and little hegemon (Israel).
thanks for the analysis. we all see the pattern, but i guess it's still important to debunk the bullshit--it just never seems
to stop the predetermined goals. it was widely seen that saddam's alleged wmd's didn't exist, but the invasion went on. now the
u.s. wants war with iran. unless russia or china intervenes, what can stop it?
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Nov 1, 2018 3:15:48 PM |
link
@10 - WJ: Difference is, USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick. ;)
I think false flag seems likely, but i also have some doubts about ISIS claiming to be resposible. The Iranian state is also pretty
complex, with many different actors and power centers. So it cant be ruled out that those arab seperatists are resposible and
that some rouge IRGC faction took action against reason of the state as a whole.
Like B said, the EU should demand evidence. Like with Skripal.. Not trust the Danish NATO proxys.
The Dutch were not right about MH17, and neither are the Danes. Almost certainly another anti-Iranian false flag coming --
this on American soil -- w war soon to follow.
'The Russian military traced the Buk missile [9M38 missile], which shot down the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in eastern
Ukraine in 2014, using serial numbers found on missile fragments showcased by an international team of investigators led by the
Netherlands.
'Using the serial number of the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 No. 8-30-113 and the engine of the missile 9D131 with the serial
number 8869032, the Russian military identified this missile as one produced by the Dolgoprudny plant – a Soviet/Russian designer
and mass producer of surface-to-air missiles located in the city of Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast.
'The military said that the documentation for the aforementioned missile is still stored at the plant – the missile with the
aforementioned engine and nozzle cluster has the manufacturing serial number of 8868720.
'According to the provided documents, the nozzle cluster was installed in the missile on December 24, 1986. The engine was
installed to the missile on the same day.'
About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless. Otherwise, their policy goal
remains the same: Full Spectrum Dominance by any means necessary. The attack proves yet again the Outlaw US Empire would rather
have destabilization and war in the region than peace, still thinking it remains the World's Boss.
Thanks b, this is Journalism. Poor craigsummers appears to be in shock. It's ok craig.
We're in a really strange place vis a vis "Mossad" in the west. The average person on the street doesn't know whether to idolize
them as superhuman kickass kravmaga-inventing Jason Bourne types, or diabolical creeps like Weinstein's "former Mossad" minions.
Then Sacha Baron Cohen comes around and makes them funny again. Are they scary? Funny? When they appear in official media, it's
usually in a display of mindblowing incompetence or fraud. So you can see how we're confused.
25 - "USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick."
Yes, from a safe place in some place in the U.S. desert, but I wonder how the pilots of the aircraft refueling the KSA bombing
runs to Yemen feel as they finish and do a 180 to return to base. Do they first look to see what their evil has done before heading
back?
More likely it is Iran conveniently concluded that ISIS was responsible, only to get off the hook of EU countries that harbor
terrorists not only anti Iran by anti Russia, so they closed the case not to wreck meek EU attempt to find the way around US sanctions
with trade with Iran. Mossad did not like that and hence used another Russia Gate like provocation to stop EU Iran accommodation,
this time claiming new Iranian terrorism issue Orwelian style blame victims.
karlof1 27 "About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless."
I would agree with that, but I also think he will be willing to take big risks to see his plan through. He may well be like
Putin's cornered rat if his plans are blocked.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role in accusing Iran of supporting terrorism
and terrorist cells in Europe. Is Denmark's action as much to pressure Sweden and Finland into joining NATO as it is to pressure
the EU into following the US in sanctioning Iran and tearing up the nuclear treaty the EU still adheres to?
This crap by the Danes is not without precedent. They were in on the US attack against the SAA at Deir Ezzor. US, UK, Australia
and Denmark all took part in that attack.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role
the danes swede and norway,netherlands folks have all been anglo zion borged.
the man leading this charge is a mr samuel son a proud son of a son i am sure he believes what he says i'm sure he has good reason.
wait for future headlines involving norways trillion dollar sovreign wealth fund vanishing just like gadaffi libya or ukraines
gold..
country control via epstein lolita express blackmail.
young boys and girls in ritual cctv horror show as a form of soft power persuasion
I'm not entirely convinced b. The Iranian government has a long history of assassination attempts. And Denmark is not exactly
a war mongering nation so your claims seem a bit shaky. I have never been impressed by analyses of Iran on this blog, as I think
both b and many commentators here totally ignorant of the IRI's crimes against its own citizens. I am very knowledgable when it
comes to Iran and so incidents like these do not surprise me. Of course I should make clear that it is possible to be against
the IRI and western war mongering nations at the same time.
I just can't stand responding to cs21 hasbara garbage; nothing is more annoying than hasbara. To quote Irish Nobel laureate GB
Shaw: never wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig loves it!
Mossad used the MEK and another terrorist group, Jundallah in Iran when they didn't do the dirty job themselves to assassinate
Iranian scientists extra-judicially. Imagine if JFK had done same when Israel was developing its nuclear weapons on the sly?
That's not all, Mossad used these terrorists like they used terrorists in Syria to foment manufactured revolution, specifically,
in Iran, the Green Revolution and as for example what was done in Ukraine, terrorist snipers masquerading as basiji fired into
the crowd of green protestors and killed a young women who the Western media elevated as the face of the Revolution hoping it
would incite anger that would spread exponentially and trigger riots everywhere then civil war like in Syria and Ukraine, but
they were very disappointed. This is playbook Mossad/CIA revolution engineering. All constituted criminal acts against sovereign
nations, except in Iran their plan fizzled.
Mossad also used false flag against Gadaffi in Libya and years earlier against Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader
of Iran that preceded the Shah. The Lavon Affair was a false flag comprised of multiple terrorist attacks that Israel planned
and plotted to execute and blame on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian groups.
Mossad has assassinated what it considered to be terrorists in Europe, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Jordan and on and on with total
impunity. Some of these so-called terrorists were political leaders recent example Arafat, and attempted murder of Meschal, at
least one or more were false flag to trigger civil war, i.e. in Lebanon, and some were what South African Apartheid victims would
consider resistance and freedom fighters.
Israel also attacked the USSLiberty and no doubt had a hand in U.S. military sabotage in Lebanon not to mention murdering American
journalists and activists.
ALL this was done with impunity. So in regards to these foiled terrorist attacks I have no doubt Mossad is up to no good and
Israel has everything to gain in this dirty business they have executed many times before.
The truth lies in who benefits most and who has exhibited the most egregious pattern of behaviour. ISRAEL.
Yes, it certainly smells like a false flag operation.
The CIA, MI6, and Mossad have been doing such operations in Europe since the end of WW2.
No surprise.
IRAN must be a hasbara trigger word. The Zionist web army recruits have arrived. Everything you pulled out of wiki I can double,
triple, quadruple for Isra-hell. For starters, let's talk about Prison facility 1391 - torture, murder, perpetual isolation--dark
ages stuff.
Let's talk about the kidnapping, imprisonment, even torture of children. Perhaps, the worst human rights record against children.
8000 Palestinian children arrested since 2000.
What about the two-tier justice system in Isra-hell?
Shall we discuss the murder of activists, journalists and protestors? What about political prisoners in Isra-hell? What about
administrative detention. Detention without trial.
This is the tip of the iceberg regarding Isra-hell's human rights abuses. Don't get me started.
As we approach the end of the year the big questions facing Europe are:
(1) Which country will win the prize for the most decapitations or slit throats? France or Germany?
With dozens of horrific crimes recently these two competitors are running neck and neck, however with Macron's France averaging
close to one slit throat per day, France is probably going to win this contest
Which leaves us with the big question Germans are asking
(2) Which city will earn the distinction of being 2018's Rape Capital of Germany?
For a long time it seemed that the winner would surely be Berlin, but then Freiburg lurched into the lead a few weeks ago.
And now, with a 15-year-old being gang-raped by Afghan asylum seekers, Munich is hustling to take the title.
This crime and subsequent arrests were kept out of the media for a few weeks
-- coincidentally, until just after the recent local elections in Bavaria
The article below from Bild, also translated into English, contains additional details:
Suspects in Custody: Six Men Allegedly Raped Girl (15)
October 30, 2018
Munich -- The Munich police have arrested five Afghan refugees; according to Bayerischer Rundfunk another alleged perpetrator
is on the run.
The allegation: They reportedly raped a 15-year-old girl.
The Munich public prosecutor confirmed to BILD upon request that there is an investigation involving a sexual assault and several
people have been arrested. The spokesman did not want to comment further.
The case: The girl, who is being psychologically cared for, according to BILD's information, had filed charges against her
"partner" at the end of September. The asylum seeker is said to have verbally threatened her and thereby forced her to have intercourse.
Also, he forced her to have intercourse with several his friends. She was so intimidated that she had to endure being abused
by them all for several days. Each case is to be handled individually. Physical violence had played no role in the incidents.
In addition to the alleged victim's partner, four other refugees (all between 20 and 25 years old) were arrested. The alleged
perpetrators are registered asylum seekers.
In the meantime, warrants have been issued against them on suspicion of rape. They are in custody.
The assaults are said to have occurred at the end of September. The first arrests were made four weeks ago.
Some interrogations remain to be conducted to substantiate the allegations made by the alleged victim, which is one explanation
for why the authorities have not made the case public.
Some of the detainees admitted that they had intercourse with the minor, but said that it had taken place by mutual agreement."
Got that?
According to Bild, "Physical violence played no role in the incidents"
First their is money laundering charges by the US against Denmark's largest bank and now we have Denmark joining the Trump stomp
on Iran project. Could it be the US cut a deal with Denmark to limit their investigations and penalties into this bank and maybe
others, or possible involvement of Danish government officials, and the Dane's jumped at the chance to limit the damage to the
country and it's economy and keep sanction happy Trump from sanctioning them into the poor house.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
42 ben, ditto... cs has never heard of the cia and the past countless years of there horrors... in fact as far as cs is concerned,
they never had any role to play in ghouta 2011 and afterwards either...cs thinks the letters stand for charity international association...usaid
is another benevolent org as far as cs is concerned... if cs was ever to read john perkins 'confessions of an economic hit man'
he would fall out of his chair and have his world turned upside down.... cs really needs to hang over at pat langs site where
some of his love and ignorance of the usa's covert history has a place of acceptance.. it ain't here..
"It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role."
Very difficult to distinguish the two. Israel declared its campaign to internally destabilise Iran last spring (evidently having
quailed at the risks of the open military attack), the US has been fruitlessly attempting the same for forty years. I suppose
the new Israeli campaign has revived US efforts.
By the way, I was interested by Alastair Crooke's recent remark that Israeli air superiority has been broken by the S300s.
Crooke's views are to take seriously.
Steve, how could you overlook the all time top lap dog: the UK? The UK would be first on most people's list of sycophant enablers
of US terrorism, regime change, and false flag operations. Sometimes Macron tries to run ahead of the pack, but gets slapped back
by Trump, but when all is said and done, the whole NATO crew are self-serving idiots and assholes.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
Posted by: Steve | Nov 2, 2018 4:49:42 AM | 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said!
I totally agree with you after saw the ghastly bully behaviour of Denmark on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference,
who was actively trying to force down the throat of BRICS (EPS. China & India) and developing countries the schemes that US &
Co wanted: 1): to strangle the development chance of third world and 2). to escape the accountability/ownership of the big messy
pollution the Western countries has been emitted into the air and the world for centuries.
Another aggressive Dane who was in full swing to propagate the Empire's interests/schemes is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-NATO
Secretary General, who was so belligerent that I sometimes question how the peace-love Denmark can produce such an aggressive
person......
b, is there any way to highlight a 'Craig Summers' post at the top, so we can skip over his/her/their lying rubbish unread. Bad
enough having to wade through the effusions of the sprinkling of religious loonies who seem to be posting now, without wasting
time on this bellingcrap-style hasbarollocks.
"In the beginning of 2017 the Danish Security Service PET had received information about planned political murder of individuals
in Denmark who oppose the Turkish government. The PET acted on the information and put the would be targets in safety. This is
revealed by Swedish Radio Ekot. https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6975341
And is Denmark going to stop doing this:"Denmark's foreign minister has for the first time acknowledged that the government
allowed the sale of surveillance technology to authoritarian Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE." "Mass surveillance
during and after the Arab Spring was used to facilitate the mass incarceration of dissidents, leading to the eventual crushing
of popular movements, the report alleged."
And what are the Syro-Ahwazian pro-FSA dudes up to in Denmark:"One battalion of the rebel Free Syrian Army is called the "Ahwaz
Brigade", although the group says there are no foreign fighters in its ranks.
"We have relations with different factions of the (Syrian) rebels," said Habib Nabgan, the former head of a coalition of Ahwazi
parties whose armed wing carried out last week's pipeline attack.
"They need information, which we give them, and we need some of their expertise, so there is cooperation and that is developing,"
he told Reuters via telephone from Denmark, where he took refuge in 2006." https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-iran-arabs-insight-idUKBRE97E0O620130815
Ahwazians in Syria:"Before the Syrian uprising, the Ahwazi community in Damascus was living in fear, but is now fully behind the
revolutionary struggle.There have been frequent demonstrations in Syria by Ahwazi Arabs flying the opposition flag alongside their
own."
Interesting, the first time i heard of this story my instinct immediately was, why on earth would Iran conduct such risky and
rather pointless operations where the downside would greatly outweigh any benefit if they were caught?? Add to that, no one was
harmed, they got "caught".. and Mossad involved.. seems pretty clear to anyone who actually understands what's going on in the
world.. but there aren't many of us who actually think when we read the news.. thanks again MR B for another insightful piece
on analysis :)
Why? Because you think your Zionist propaganda claptrap is actually convincing and working to bring down surviving bastions
of independent thought? It's laughable how hasbara-scripted you read; delivering superficially well-constructed neoliberal brainwash,
whitewash material. Your disingenuous ilk courting the Left with liberal goodies, in one hand while unleashing double-standard
neoconservative righteous destruction with the other is the main reason we now suffer Trump's fascist right-wing version of same.
People protest vote neoliberalism and end up in the arms of the hard right-wing version. It's a no choice choice; an affront to
real democracy. You play the desperation of the Left against the Right and then deliver it into the same neoconstruct. You're
two sides of the same cult and neither can stand independent thought. After I read your Zionist-contrived claptrap, I feel like
my mind has been abused and my time wasted. Once you're wise to the trap, you never go back to falling for whichever charismatic
puppet is going to save us from the other side.
The goal becomes helping others break free of the vicious, cyclical no-choice duopoly to viably challenge and destroy it for
good! You pretend at righeousness, but you're on the side of status quo darkness.
Uh, just one more point, I still believe in GW Shaw's wisdom that you shouldn't wrestle with ignorance, ie pigs, but I just intended
@56 as a Reader Beware CS for anyone who's out there only reading.
Perhaps of more importance was Crooke's remark on US debt. He said in August the cost of servicing the debt, for the first
time, exceeded tax revenue. On top of that, the US must sell over a trillion of new debt each year for the next three years.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2, 2018 11:31:43 AM | 58
Yes I too thought that was interesting. But Israel's problem is more fatal, in a permanent sense. Air superiority once lost
won't be recovered, but the US could, if it wanted to, live more within its means.
As usual, some former official has to include : Israeli intelligence tipped off the CIA that Iran had likely identified
some of its assets, said the same former official.
"Bolton, speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington, said he expects U.S. defense
spending "to flatten out" in the near term. He said he didn't anticipate major cuts to entitlements such as Medicare and Social
Security.
""It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society,"
Bolton said. "And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.""
Of course, he wants to cut support for citizens instead of support for the Deep State and its massively corrupt MIC. The massive
cut in revenues caused by Trump's giveaways to corporations and the 1% were designed to exacerbate the problem and create an artificial
crisis in discretionary spending. Most from all sides of the political spectrum can see this for what it is and are already pushing
back, which will be the fundamental reason Trump won't get a 2nd term--his policies are proving to be a fiscal nightmare.
The evidence provided by the author that the CIA was the primary driving agent in these incidents is not compelling. In fact,
the US government under Obama supported the JCPOA against the wishes of the Netanyahu government. Thus the statement that "US
interests" are necessarily defined by sanctions against Iran seems to me to be unfounded. Had the author replaced "US interests"
with "Trump administration policies", which are clearly much more aligned with the interests of the Likud and Netanyahu the statement
might be more supportable.
"Do you remember the Green revolution of 2009 that went pfttttt?"
Very interesting article, but the Green Revolution didn't go pfft because of that. 2009 failed because the middle class aren't
very good at revolutions. They aren't the majority, and they didn't have popular support.
Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons, contrary to US and British claims. I discovered in
Baghdad a group of British scientific technicians who had been sent by the UK Ministry of
Defense to build outlawed biological weapons at Salman Pak. These included deadly anthrax
and Q-fever – but only for use against Iran if a second Iraq-Iran War erupted.
Plenty of good stuff at the link including what we have read before.
The article leads me to this question: If whomever can fabricate Syrian Army messages,
isn't there one small problem with it? I.e. The Brits may be hoovering up SIGNIT from Mount
Troodos in Cyprus, but unless the radio signals are highly directional (and even then they
emanate outwards), other nations are also recording these signals, such as Russia,
which we never hear about.
Therefore, the Brits/8200 whomever must assume that the Russians have copies and would
know if the former are putting up the bs and can call it out behind closed doors at the UN to
other nations. So what's the point? Simply for building media outrage and DO
SOMETHING! momentum, hoping to act first before it can be scotched? That's what used to
happen in the past
That's a really good piece, with loads of interesting information. What jumped out for me,
though was what amounts to a professional acknowledgement of something that was introduced by
commenters early on in the Skripal affair – the almost complete absence of CCTV footage
of their movements and those of people close to them. As both sources point out, England is
lousy with CCTV, you can barely move without being picked up on multiple cameras. Therefore
the British must have hours of footage that they have chosen not to reveal. And as the
article concludes, the only logical reason for that is that it does not support the official
narrative, since one has obviously been decided upon and vigorously defended.
As an aside, it is tragic that intelligence is manipulated the way it is to present a
desired conclusion. Because intelligence is supposed to be something like the irrefutable
clue, the piece that doesn't fit, in detective stories. It is supposed to provide that
epiphanous moment when you know what has transpired beyond any reasonable doubt. Every
time that moment is discovered to have been brought about by fabrication and deceit so as to
push an incorrect conclusion to the forefront, trust in the method diminishes. Consequently,
the harder governments push this or that piece of evidence as the conclusive piece of proof
which cannot be denied, the more likely it is to have been manufactured rather than
discovered.
A tweetstorm consisting of quotes from Israel Shamir's excellent
article on Bill Browder showing how he operated in an entirely Jewish milieu. Jewish ethnic
networking is alive and well in the twenty-first century.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This probably a uniquely Jewish
quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures,
unz.com/ishamir/the-go...
The Untouchable Mr. Browder?
The Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime.
Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they
present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by
Browder's structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the
Magnitsky Act
12:04 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish
American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the Veteran News
Network and in The Huffington Post.
12:05 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018 # Replying to @TOOEdit
"Beneficiary of Browder's generosity is Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, the engine
behind Magnitsky Act. Cardin is a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior
of good standing. More to a point, Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit
"Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder,
Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin." Lists other Jews he was involved with: Robert Maxwell, Safra,
Berezovsky,
Two disappearances, and two very different responses from Western governments, which
illustrates their rank hypocrisy.
When former Russian spy Sergei Skripal went missing in England earlier this year, there was
almost immediate punitive action by the British government and its NATO allies against Moscow.
By contrast, Western governments are straining with restraint towards Saudi Arabia over the
more shocking and provable case of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The outcry by Western governments and media over the Skripal affair was deafening and
resulted in Britain, the US and some 28 other countries
expelling dozens of Russian diplomats on the back of unsubstantiated British allegations
that the Kremlin tried to assassinate an exiled spy with a deadly nerve agent. The Trump
administration has further tightened sanctions
citing the Skripal incident.
London's case against Moscow has been marked by wild speculation and ropey innuendo. No
verifiable evidence of what actually happened to Sergei Skripal (67) and his daughter Yulia has
been presented by the British authorities . Their claim that President Vladimir Putin
sanctioned a hit squad armed with nerve poison relies on sheer conjecture.
All we know for sure is that the Skripals have been disappeared from public contact by the British authorities for more than
seven months, since the mysterious incident of alleged poisoning in Salisbury on March 4.
Russian authorities and family relatives have been steadfastly refused any contact by London with the Skripal pair, despite
more than 60 official requests from Moscow in accordance with international law and in spite of the fact that Yulia is a citizen
of the Russian Federation with consular rights.
It is an outrage that based on such thin ice of "evidence", the British have built an edifice of censure against Moscow,
rallying an international campaign of further sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.
Now contrast that strenuous reaction, indeed hyper over-reaction, with how Britain, the US, France, Canada and other Western
governments are ever-so slowly responding to Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi case.
After nearly two weeks since Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, the Saudi regime is this week
finally admitting he was killed on their premises – albeit, they claim, in a "botched interrogation".
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
Russians were robbed by Jewish people both domestic & foreign under Yeltsin & president Putin stopped them starting with Yukos
& Khodorkovsky & others like Berezovski fled to UK.
A similar history we found in the 30th in Germany which caused the rise of Adolf Hitler & his anti-Semitism ultimately ending
in the Holocaust.
Presently we see the same happening in USA where the Democratic establishment in media, industry & banks are fighting back
- using any illegal method in the book -against the white 'Waspy' Republicans of Trump. And let's not forget that the US population
is for 72% White!! That's NOT racism but pure & simple democracy at work.
"... Russian has a unique descriptive term--Anglicized as Neculturny: Those without/incapable of having culture, an extremely disparaging term. I bring this up because what we see rising again in the United States is intolerance and the criminalization of charity--particularly toward the homeless. The attitude of the Outlaw US Empire's military toward the bombing of civilians, their infrastructure and all related behavior that are War Crimes is the most graphic example--Yemen, Haiti, Palestine, Somalia, and all too many other places. Just the Russian attempts to try and minimize civilian casualties in Syria versus NATO's attitude on the question shows the vast divide present. Which nations are tolerant thus ipso facto humanitarian and which aren't? IMO, the divide is very stark. One side says There's No Alternative, while the other says Another World's Possible that dignifies people rather than denigrating them. ..."
The following is from the Q&A portion of Valdai Club's Plenary Session and IMO is very critical as we attempt to understand
what underlies the extreme Russophobia displayed by Western elites and their minions:
"Chairman of the Patriarchal Council for Culture Metropolitan Tikhon:
"The round table I took part in here, at Valdai, dealt with cultural issues, or to be exact, whether and how culture can affect
the life of society in the 21st century and today.
"At the onset of the discussion Mr Zanussi asked the following question, Can we even grasp, can we assess a nation's culture
today? An opinion was voiced that the level of charity in society may be such an assessment criterion. I mean general culture,
not its specific manifestations.
"It may seem that it was a fairly abstract discussion. But the events in Kerch, even though we do not fully understand the
motives behind this ill-fated person's actions, let us see how aggression and intolerance are on the rise not only in Russia but
also generally everywhere.
"My question is as follows: Firstly, what do you yourself think of the conclusions we have made at this round table regarding
charity as a key criterion of society's general culture ? [My Emphasis]
"Secondly, we talk a lot of about state culture policy nowadays. There is a lot of debate. We are all aware that the state
will not regulate culture in a rough or intrusive way, and this is probably absolutely correct. But can the state deliberately
support all those creative and historical spiritual and cultural keynote dominants that have developed in Russia, something we
call spiritual and cultural values?
"Vladimir Putin: I think this what we have been doing, in reference to the second part of your question. I think the state
must do this very carefully by allowing people with different outlooks to work out their own views, express them and compete,
let us say, with your views. It may seem surprising for me to say that, but I think this is the way it is.
"My sympathies certainly lie with you, but as a state official, I still think it is my duty to ensure the opportunity for every
person to express their position. Why? Because my position is based on the first part of your comment.
" What is charity? To use more modern words, it is tolerance, commitment to compromise. At any rate, it is one of the facets
of charity. This is the way it is. If we claim that charity, tolerance is a criterion of culture, then we must be in a position
to let people express their views and listen to them. " [My Emphasis]
Russian has a unique descriptive term--Anglicized as Neculturny: Those without/incapable of having culture, an extremely
disparaging term. I bring this up because what we see rising again in the United States is intolerance and the criminalization
of charity--particularly toward the homeless. The attitude of the Outlaw US Empire's military toward the bombing of civilians,
their infrastructure and all related behavior that are War Crimes is the most graphic example--Yemen, Haiti, Palestine, Somalia,
and all too many other places. Just the Russian attempts to try and minimize civilian casualties in Syria versus NATO's attitude
on the question shows the vast divide present. Which nations are tolerant thus ipso facto humanitarian and which aren't? IMO,
the divide is very stark. One side says There's No Alternative, while the other says Another World's Possible that dignifies
people rather than denigrating them.
The Blogmire
According to
an article in The Mail , the mother of Sergei Skripal, Yelena, has not heard from
her son since the incident on 4th March , and the last time she heard from her granddaughter,
Yulia, was on 24th July:
"Recalling her phone conversation with Yulia, Yelena told the Daily Mirror : 'The
last time I actually spoke to Yulia was on the 24th of July on my 90th birthday. She
rang - it was unexpected but it was so lovely to hear from her. She called and was actually
with Sergei. She told me: "I'm with daddy he is beside me but he can't speak as he has a pain
in his throat". She said he had been in some pain.'"
This is interesting for a number of reasons.
Firstly, we know that during the conversation on 24th July, according to a number of reports
(for example here
), Yulia told her grandmother that the reason Sergei was unable to speak was because his voice
was still weak due to a tracheostomy :
"Babushka, happy birthday, everything is fine, everything is perfect. I am in London with
papa. He can't speak because he's got a tracheostomy, that pipe, which will be taken off in
three days. Now when he speaks with that pipe, his voice is first of all very weak and
secondly, he makes quite a lot of wheeze. So babushka with your poor hearing you would really
struggle to understand him. He'll call after the tracheostomy is off. "
This was almost 3 months ago. So the tracheostomy was preventing Sergei from
speaking; but it was coming off in three days; yet nearly 3 months later and still no call from
Sergei? Is that not very odd? Indeed, especially given that Yelena states in the interview that
she and Sergei used to speak every week .
Secondly, the call on 24th July is itself very odd. Notice that Yulia uses the phrases
"everything is fine, everything is perfect." These are basically the same sorts of phrases that
she repeated over and over in
her call with her cousin Viktoria on 5th April :
"Everything is ok, everything is fine."
"Everything is fine, but we'll see how it goes, we'll decide later. You know what the
situation is here. Everything is fine, everything is solvable, everyone is recovering and is
alive."
"Everything is ok. He is resting now, having a nap. Everyone's health is fine, there are
no irreparable things. I will be discharged soon. Everything is ok."
She seems very keen - some would say overly keen - to emphasise that everything is
fine and okay and perfect etc. To me it sounds unnatural and forced. What do you think?
But more than this, imagine yourself in the same situation. Your father is next to you. He
can speak, but not very well, and so can't communicate through the phone to his mother. What
would you do? Well, I know what I would do. I would relay speech from the one to the other. "He
says he's getting better and misses you very much grandma." "She says she loves you, dad."
Isn't that what normal people would do in such circumstances?
But instead, Yulia speaks in a way that doesn't fill me with too much certainty that he was
actually in the room with her. It's all very medical and somewhat officious. And even if his
voice was a bit wheezy and hard to understand, his ears were okay, weren't they? Couldn't Yulia
have held the phone to her dad's ear so he could hear his mother speak to him? Again, that
would be what a normal person would do in such circumstances, wouldn't it? But of course they
don't do normal in SkripalWorld.
Thirdly, we have to reckon with the fact that since that call, in which Yulia indicated that
Sergei would call in as little as three days, there has been no communication at all . Not with
grandma. Not with Viktoria. Not with anyone (apparently even Mark Urban got the cold
shoulder).
Actually, that's not quite the case. We don't really have to reckon with this because the
heroic journalism of The Mail gives us the answer. In the same piece that it mentioned
a call between Yulia and her grandma, in which Sergei was apparently sat right next to Yulia,
we get this:
"Since that solitary phone conversation, she [Yelena] has not heard from her the two targeted
relatives as any contact could lead Russian forces to the pair."
Remarkable, isn't it? So according to The Mail , the reason that Sergei
Skripal cannot call his mother, is because Russian forces might be able to trace his
whereabouts and order a hit on him. Another one, apparently. And yet in the very same piece
they report on Yulia Skripal calling her grandmother on 24th July, with Sergei Skripal at her
side. See? It's obvious, isn't it?
Not for the first time in this case, I'm left scratching my head and wondering whether the
journalists who write this sort of thing believe their readers to be so dim that they won't
notice statements in the same article that utterly refute one another, or whether the
journalists themselves are so witless that they simply don't realise that they are
contradicting themselves in the space of a few sentences. Any thoughts?
The fact is that Yulia has phoned her cousin Viktoria a number of times since the beginning
of April, and in most, if not all of those calls, her father was said to be close by. She even
did a little film for Reuters in May, with her father apparently in the same compound. Why were
these allowed, since according to The Mail , it could have led Russian forces to the
pair? Or are we to believe that Russian forces have only just developed the capability to trace
phone calls since 24th July? Worse still, have British Security Services forgotten how to
prevent phone calls being traced by other intelligence agencies since 24th July, not to mention
also losing the ability to stop Russian forces from coming and getting them?
Or is it more likely that The Mail cannot be bothered to ask the obvious questions
that stem from their own report. Such as:
1. Why is the apparent victim in this case, Sergei Skripal, who is under the protection of
British (and possibly US) intelligence services, unable to phone his mother, whom he used to
speak to on a weekly basis?
2. Does this constitute a violation of his human rights?
3. Given that he has had no contact with his mother since 4th March, how can we be sure
that he is alive, and if he is, whether he is not being held against his will?
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
The President has authority under the Global Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions against
anyone who has committed a human rights violation. Congress has already requested a HR
investigation which Trump must act on and report to them within 4 months
It appears my prediction of Saudi gate may be right. This potentially is good news for
Iran and Russia. Perhaps not so good for Trump and Saidis. Israel may not be happy. Perhaps
his wife's plane troubles were a warning shot to remind him who is boss. Who knows ?
Haleys resignation beginning to make sense now. The House of Trump and House of Saud may
soon fall, and Bibi wont be happy losing Trump and MBS. We all know what they are capable of
to get things back on track
Why did the media held back on this so for so long?
Yemen (and Gaza).
CGTN & Al-Jazeera are the only global news outlets consistently and regularly reporting on the US facilitated
genocides in Yemen and Jewish-occupied Palestine/Gaza.
The never-ending Khashoggi non-mystery mystery keeps Yemen & Gaza out of the Jew-controlled Western Media
headlines. Saudi Barbaria and "Israel" are natural allies because each of them is an artificial Western political
construct with a cowardly and incompetent military apparatus and an anti-heroic penchant for slaughtering undefended
civilians - for psychopathic reasons.
--------
Talking about psychopathy...
Oz's Christian Zionist PM, Sco Mo, is blathering about following Trump's lead and moving Oz's Embassy in "Israel" to
Jerusalem. Sc Mo, who has never had an original idea in his life, still hasn't woken up to the fact that Trump's
Jerusalem gambit was a trap for Bibi. So it's hilarious that Sco Mo The Unoriginal, is planning to take a flying
leap into the same trap!
Anyone with more than half a brain would realise that...
1. No civilised country has followed Trump's lead.
2. Trump can, and will, reverse his (illegal) Jerusalem decision out of a 'new-found respect' for International Law.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 18, 2018 12:14:08 AM |
83
Whoever is ultimately behind this campaign (which I
suspect is a loose association of interest groups spread throughout SA, Turkey, London citi, wall street, whoever)
they will not stop until MbS is paraded through the streets in chains or at least his head at the end of a lance. At
this point the only question how many days will it take to see his head on a pike?
"Their target that night: Anssaf Ali Mayo, the local leader of the Islamist
political party Al-Islah. The UAE considers Al-Islah to be the Yemeni branch of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood,
which the UAE calls a terrorist organization. Many experts insist that Al-Islah, one of whose members won the Nobel
Peace Prize, is no terror group. They say it's a legitimate political party that threatens the UAE not through
violence but by speaking out against its ambitions in Yemen."
".......Russia's
foreign minister has accused the open-source Bellingcat investigative team of acting as a front
for Western intelligence services seeking to manipulate public opinion.
Bellingcat has played a leading role in identifying the alleged names of two men accused
of trying to poison ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain this year. It has
previously published investigations that reportedly link Russia to the downing of flight MH17
in eastern Ukraine and suspected chemical attacks in Syria.
"It's no secret to anyone, Western journalists write openly that Bellingcat is connected to
special services," Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Euronews
on Tuesday.
"They leak information through it to have some effect on public opinion," he
said......."
Two disappearances, and two very different responses from Western governments, which illustrates their rank
hypocrisy.
When former Russian spy Sergei Skripal went missing in England earlier this year, there was almost
immediate punitive action by the British government and its NATO allies against Moscow.
By contrast,
Western governments are straining with restraint towards Saudi Arabia over the more shocking and provable case of
murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The outcry by Western governments and media over the Skripal affair was deafening and resulted in Britain, the US
and some 28 other countries
expelling
dozens
of Russian diplomats on the back of unsubstantiated British allegations that the Kremlin tried to assassinate an
exiled spy with a deadly nerve agent. The Trump administration has further tightened
sanctions
citing
the Skripal incident.
London's case against Moscow has been marked by wild speculation and ropey innuendo.
No verifiable
evidence of what actually happened to Sergei Skripal (67) and his daughter Yulia has been presented by the British
authorities
. Their claim that President Vladimir Putin sanctioned a hit squad armed with nerve poison
relies on sheer conjecture.
All we know for sure is that the Skripals have been disappeared from public contact by the British
authorities for more than seven months
, since the mysterious incident of alleged poisoning in Salisbury
on March 4.
Russian authorities and family relatives have been steadfastly refused any contact by London with the Skripal
pair, despite more than 60 official requests from Moscow in accordance with international law and in spite of the
fact that Yulia is a citizen of the Russian Federation with consular rights.
It is an outrage that
based on such thin ice of "evidence", the British have built an edifice of
censure against Moscow, rallying an international campaign of further sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.
Now contrast that strenuous reaction, indeed hyper over-reaction, with how Britain, the US, France, Canada and
other Western governments are ever-so slowly responding to Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi case.
After nearly two weeks since Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, t
he Saudi
regime is this week finally admitting he was killed on their premises – albeit, they claim, in a "botched
interrogation".
Turkish and American intelligence had earlier claimed that Khashoggi was tortured and murdered on the Saudi
premises by a 15-member hit squad sent from Riyadh.
Even more grisly, it is
claimed
that
Khashoggi's body was hacked up with a bone saw by the killers, his remains secreted out of the consulate building
in boxes, and flown back to Saudi Arabia on board two private jets connected to the Saudi royal family.
What's more, the Turks and Americans claim that the whole barbaric plot to murder Khashoggi was on the orders
of senior Saudi rulers, implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The latest twist out of Riyadh, is an
attempt to scapegoat "rogue killers" and whitewash the House of Saudi from culpability.
The fact that 59-year-old Khashoggi was a legal US resident and a columnist for the Washington Post has no
doubt given his case such prominent coverage in Western news media. Thousands of other victims of Saudi vengeance
are routinely ignored in the West.
Nevertheless, despite the horrific and damning case against the Saudi monarchy,
the response from the
Trump administration, Britain and others has been abject.
President Trump has blustered that there "will be severe consequences" for the Saudi regime if it is proven
culpable in the murder of Khashoggi. Trump quickly qualified, however,
saying
that
billion-dollar arms deals with the oil-rich kingdom will not be cancelled.
Now Trump appears to be joining
in a cover-up by spinning the story that the Khashoggi killing was done by "rogue killers".
Britain, France and Germany this week issued a
joint
statement
calling for "a credible investigation" into the disappearance. But other than "tough-sounding"
rhetoric, n
one of the European states have indicated any specific sanctions, such as weapons contracts
being revoked or diplomatic expulsions.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was "concerned"
by the gruesome claims about
Khashoggi's killing,
but he
reiterated
that
Ottawa would not be scrapping a $15 billion sale of combat vehicles to Riyadh.
The Saudi rulers have even
threatened
retaliatory
measures if sanctions are imposed by Western governments.
Saudi denials of official culpability seem to be a brazen flouting of all reason and circumstantial evidence
that Khashoggi was indeed murdered in the consulate building on senior Saudi orders.
This week a glitzy international investor conference in Saudi Arabia is being boycotted by top business
figures,
including
the
World Bank chief, Jim Yong Kim, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Britain's venture capitalist Richard Branson. Global
firms like Ford and Uber have pulled out, as have various media sponsors, such as CNN, the New York Times and
Financial Times. Withdrawal from the event was in response to the Khashoggi affair.
A growing bipartisan
chorus
of
US Senators, including Bob Corker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Chris Murphy, have called for the cancellation
of American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as well as for an overhaul of the strategic partnership between the two
countries.
Still, Trump has rebuffed calls for punitive response.
He has said that American jobs and
profits depend on the Saudi weapons market. Some 20 per cent of all US arms sales are estimated to go to the House
of Saud.
The New York Times this week headlined: "In Trump's Saudi Bargain, the Bottom Line Proudly Stands Out".
The Trump White House will be represented at the investment conference in Saudi Arabia this week – dubbed
"Davos in the Desert" by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. He said he was
attending
in
spite of the grave allegations against the Saudi rulers.
Surely the point here is the unseemly indulgence by Western governments of Saudi Arabia and its so-called
"reforming" Crown Prince. It is remarkable how much credulity Washington, London, Paris, Ottawa and others are
affording the Saudi despots who, most likely, have been caught redhanded in a barbarous murder.
Yet, when it comes to Russia and outlandish, unproven claims that the Kremlin carried out a bizarre
poison-assassination plot, all these same Western governments abandon all reason and decorum to pile sanctions on
Russia based on lurid, hollow speculation. The blatant hypocrisy demolishes any pretense of integrity or
principle.
Here is another connection between the Skripal and Khashoggi affairs. The Saudis no doubt took note of the way
Britain's rulers have shown absolute disregard and contempt for international law in their de facto abduction of
Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
If the British can get away with that gross violation, then the Saudis probably
thought that nobody would care too much if they disappeared Jamal Khashoggi.
Grotesquely, the way things are shaping up in terms of hypocritical lack of action by the Americans, British
and others towards
the Saudi despots, the latter might just get away with murder. Not so Russia. The
Russians are not allowed to get away with even an absurd fantasy.
We are in "Pulp Fiction" aren't we? Any scenario is possible coming from the Saudis or
the Anglo media. The Skripal has been a successful one.
Thanks for completing the scenario with your own ideas of the beheading of witnesses that you
mistakenly attributed to me.
I would suppose that Saudis have something usually convincing to shut off talkative
people, like they will shut off Trump or even the Turks: Money
The Skripal hoax grew legs I never imagined possible. If people did quietly question it,
those people were deprived of a public counter-narrative in the mainstream Press to nurture
their skepticism. This could cause a dimwit to renounce natural suspicion and a sharpie to
know when to shut-up if he/she did not wish to be laughed at or worse.
They have so many of us dangling on a string. Thank b and others for MoA!
Cool down! We had TWO GRU murderers walk into Salisbury, with no CCCTV ecidense yet that they
were near Skripal's house, and no evidence from his house , which surely must have under
surveillance. Do you believe this? OK you believe the official story too.
And apart from that, Kashroggis probable demise is all cool, as he was a head chopping
advocate, a Wahabistst. Fuck him . Wahabists go in Class on camps which has on the entrance
"Arbeit mach frei" which of course is a general lie, but the whe get to kill them in a
humanely way (see instruction manual from CiA)
Or you just shoot them in the chest, less smatter and more blood. Headshots are messy, stuff
everywhere., sometimetimes, if you accidentially hit a weak point in the cranium , you have
brains everywhere , dont wan't that.
As another poster commented, something is missing...
It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice
fitting together... Hmfr!
Qui bono? Who makes money on this? I certainly cannot answer that, but lets play safe : The
Russians did it!
They beamed up Kasshoggi to their base on the dark side of the moon, the re killed him in
civilized manner, fucking him to death with nice looking whores and spoonfeeding him Beluga
caviar and interjected wit sips of Russian Starka. He was then made to mush and beamed back
into the Saudi consulate making a real mess. Now poor headchop promoter is all over the
place! He must love that up in his muslum heaven with 72 old hags. There is no martyrdom in
being beamed to the moon and put through a garden shredder, that is nothing special.
So now the Saudi's has Khassoggi al over their faces (literally :)) and the Turks eye a new
way to betray someone (Putin, wake up!!). Ever since democracy was bestowed on these people,
they have made a mess of it.
Back in the day (when I was gung ho Army boy), it was OK for a Turk officer to shoot dead a
couple of conscripts a year, no problemo, the sentries with weapons had no live rounds hi-hi.
Turkey does not need a hard shove and it will crumble, and the Americans will intervene,
unless Russia is first.
This game is about Turkey, and not goat herders in Saudi Sodoma. They have hardly oil left
and the plebs are angry.
Jared Kushner's friendship/affair with previously merely progressive war criminal MBS, who
has progressed to now also beinted tainted with responsibility for the lurid butchery of an
offensive to MBS 'journalist' who was but days from marriage and the arms of his love, does
not elevate Kushner's already dubious standing in some circles.
Kushner, he who on one memorable occasion chatted til the early hours of the morning,
"cultivating a close friendship", with the mass murdering progressive MBS, who (thus
inspired?; coincidentally?) to Trumpian applause arrested and shook down many members of his
billionaire-cult family. But is this a busom buddy friendship born of equality, two young men
with so much in common?
MBS has been quoted as saying he has "Kushner in my pocket". Hmmm.
And then there's NYT's Tom Friedman's gushing rhapsody in purple over MBS: "... a genuine
reformer, mega-popular dude, and an all-around super awesome guy." Friedman's love was stoked
over what he presumed was a lamb dinner, but in the light of further developments, we are not
so sure....
He was most critical of the Saudi Royals and ;) 'pro-reform.' He was kidnapped in Geneva,
apparently as carried out or 'allowed' for a good part by the Saudi Ambassador.
He was, allegedly, 'rendered' back to KSA, drugged and tortured. Five masked men
knocked him unconscious, anesthetized him, taken him to a Boeing 747 waiting at the Geneva
airport, and flew him to the Saudi capital Riyadh
In F, closer to the events: Celui-ci s'éclipse de la pièce et peu
après, des hommes armés font irruption, frappent Sultan ben Turki, le
menottent, lui font une injection et le transportent inconscient jusqu'à
l'aéroport de Cointrin, où il est embarqué à bord d'un Boeing
médical arrivé plusieurs jours auparavant et toujours prêt à
décoller, selon le récit qu'il en a fait plus tard.
Prison > house arrest, > once freed - he was allowed to go to Boston for medical
treatment - he fled - back to Geneva! - and a court case took place (2016.) Pierre de Preux,
a well known lawyer here, represented him. Imho the state prosecutor (= DA) was brave to take
on this case. It was nevertheless shelved for lack of evidence.
Killing off critics / potential trouble makers / other / takes different forms in
different régimes.
In the US for ex. no big show is made, and the death is classed as suicide, car accident,
druggie death, mystery fall / drowning, etc. no matter how weird the circumstances. In other
lands, it is deemed necessary to demonstrate the power of the Overlords, who can organise 15
ppl, a stark warning is projected.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Oct 13, 2018 8:46:30 AM | 118
On one hand, the quantity of black flag incidents is increasing, and that leads to low
quality at many occasions. Ukrainians in particular excel in making most laughable incidents
and the British seem to be influenced. Babchenko was killed, his murder condemned by Her
Majesty Foreign Office and then got resurected. Brits seem to liked that, as exemplified by
heroics of Sir Gavin, the Lord Defender of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland,
Island of Man etc. etc.) on the frontline of the Free Ukraine.
On the other hand, were Saudis innocent they should have means of proving it. Consulates
have security systems including cameras near the entry. While they are attacked less
frequently than convenience stores, they have a better budget for such systems. Thus it
should not be hard to show that either (a) Jamal Khashoggi actually did not enter KSA
consulate in Istanbul on the day in question or (b) he entered and exited. Barring the use of
hitherto unknown types of beam weapons, I would conclude that he entered and did not exit by
normal means.
That said, there were no reports on beam weapons capable of transporting material objects.
At worst, Russians could focus microwave weapons reducing people inside the consulate to
incontinent cricket hearing idiots, enter through the underground and get out carrying
whatever they please. KSA could be reluctant to release videos showing their people as they
looked like idiots who just pissed into their pants and worse. This is what I can imagine on
the basis of stories from American press that include at least two of "Russia,
consulate/embassy, microwave weapons", usually all three. If we restrict ourself to more
corroborated stories, Russians could drill holes and saturate the air with "military grade
fentanyl" and eschew microwaves. But it would be easier if it was done by Turks with the help
of Russian experts who botched something like that at least once, so they have data how to
drill, spray and calculate the dosage.
Surely, one should not deprecate the ability of Turks to concoct tales. For example, a
typical tale from Tales of 1001 Nights features a beautiful Turkish princess that falls from
one misfortune to another at the hands of a trio of bad characters: a Jewish merchant, a
Christian magician and a Kurdish leader of a band of robbers, only to be eventually rescued
by a dashing young Muslim Arab, and we may have such a tale suitable altered for the occasion
-- perhaps despicable Kurds will show up later.
But really, offering Starka to a prisoner? Because of long aging time and the demand, it
is surprisingly hard to buy, and it is hard to tell if it is popular in Russia at all, Poland
and the Baltics have more of Starka tradition.
"... Any scenario is possible coming from the Saudis or the Anglo media. The Skripal has been a successful one. ..."
"... The Skripal hoax grew legs I never imagined possible. If people did quietly question it, those people were deprived of a public counter-narrative in the mainstream Press to nurture their skepticism. This could cause a dimwit to renounce natural suspicion and a sharpie to know when to shut-up if he/she did not wish to be laughed at or worse. ..."
"... It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice fitting together... ..."
"... Jared Kushner's friendship/affair with previously merely progressive war criminal MBS, who has progressed to now also beinted tainted with responsibility for the lurid butchery of an offensive to MBS 'journalist' who was but days from marriage and the arms of his love, does not elevate Kushner's already dubious standing in some circles. ..."
"... And then there's NYT's Tom Friedman's gushing rhapsody in purple over MBS: "... a genuine reformer, mega-popular dude, and an all-around super awesome guy." Friedman's love was stoked over what he presumed was a lamb dinner, but in the light of further developments, we are not so sure.... ..."
"... Reminded me of the Sultan Bin Turki affair. ..."
"... He was most critical of the Saudi Royals and ;) 'pro-reform.' He was kidnapped in Geneva, apparently as carried out or 'allowed' for a good part by the Saudi Ambassador. ..."
"... On one hand, the quantity of black flag incidents is increasing, and that leads to low quality at many occasions. Ukrainians in particular excel in making most laughable incidents and the British seem to be influenced. Babchenko was killed, his murder condemned by Her Majesty Foreign Office and then got resurected. ..."
We are in "Pulp Fiction" aren't we? Any scenario is possible coming from the Saudis or the Anglo media. The Skripal has
been a successful one.
Thanks for completing the scenario with your own ideas of the beheading of witnesses that you mistakenly attributed to me.
I would suppose that Saudis have something usually convincing to shut off talkative people, like they will shut off Trump or
even the Turks: Money
The Skripal hoax grew legs I never imagined possible. If people did quietly question it, those people were deprived of a public
counter-narrative in the mainstream Press to nurture their skepticism. This could cause a dimwit to renounce natural suspicion
and a sharpie to know when to shut-up if he/she did not wish to be laughed at or worse.
They have so many of us dangling on a string. Thank b and others for MoA!
Cool down! We had TWO GRU murderers walk into Salisbury, with no CCCTV ecidense yet that they were near Skripal's house, and no
evidence from his house , which surely must have under surveillance. Do you believe this? OK you believe the official story too.
And apart from that, Kashroggis probable demise is all cool, as he was a head chopping advocate, a Wahabistst. Fuck him . Wahabists
go in Class on camps which has on the entrance "Arbeit mach frei" which of course is a general lie, but the whe get to kill them
in a humanely way (see instruction manual from CiA)
Or you just shoot them in the chest, less smatter and more blood. Headshots are messy, stuff everywhere., sometimetimes, if you
accidentially hit a weak point in the cranium , you have brains everywhere , dont wan't that.
As another poster commented, something is missing...
It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice fitting together...
Hmfr!
Qui bono? Who makes money on this? I certainly cannot answer that, but lets play safe : The Russians did it!
They beamed up Kasshoggi to their base on the dark side of the moon, the re killed him in civilized manner, fucking him to death
with nice looking whores and spoonfeeding him Beluga caviar and interjected wit sips of Russian Starka. He was then made to mush
and beamed back into the Saudi consulate making a real mess. Now poor headchop promoter is all over the place! He must love that
up in his muslum heaven with 72 old hags. There is no martyrdom in being beamed to the moon and put through a garden shredder,
that is nothing special.
So now the Saudi's has Khassoggi al over their faces (literally :)) and the Turks eye a new way to betray someone (Putin, wake
up!!). Ever since democracy was bestowed on these people, they have made a mess of it.
Back in the day (when I was gung ho Army boy), it was OK for a Turk officer to shoot dead a couple of conscripts a year, no problemo,
the sentries with weapons had no live rounds hi-hi. Turkey does not need a hard shove and it will crumble, and the Americans will
intervene, unless Russia is first.
This game is about Turkey, and not goat herders in Saudi Sodoma. They have hardly oil left and the plebs are angry.
Jared Kushner's friendship/affair with previously merely progressive war criminal MBS, who has progressed to now also beinted
tainted with responsibility for the lurid butchery of an offensive to MBS 'journalist' who was but days from marriage and the
arms of his love, does not elevate Kushner's already dubious standing in some circles.
Kushner, he who on one memorable occasion chatted till the early hours of the morning, "cultivating a close friendship", with
the mass murdering progressive MBS, who (thus inspired?; coincidentally?) to Trumpian applause arrested and shook down many members
of his billionaire-cult family. But is this a busom buddy friendship born of equality, two young men with so much in common?
MBS has been quoted as saying he has "Kushner in my pocket". Hmmm.
And then there's NYT's Tom Friedman's gushing rhapsody in purple over MBS: "... a genuine reformer, mega-popular dude, and
an all-around super awesome guy." Friedman's love was stoked over what he presumed was a lamb dinner, but in the light of further
developments, we are not so sure....
He was most critical of the Saudi Royals and ;) 'pro-reform.' He was kidnapped in Geneva, apparently as carried out or 'allowed'
for a good part by the Saudi Ambassador.
He was, allegedly, 'rendered' back to KSA, drugged and tortured. Five masked men knocked him unconscious, anesthetized him,
taken him to a Boeing 747 waiting at the Geneva airport, and flew him to the Saudi capital Riyadh
In F, closer to the events: Celui-ci s'éclipse de la pičce et peu aprčs, des hommes armés font irruption, frappent Sultan
ben Turki, le menottent, lui font une injection et le transportent inconscient jusqu'ŕ l'aéroport de Cointrin, oů il est embarqué
ŕ bord d'un Boeing médical arrivé plusieurs jours auparavant et toujours pręt ŕ décoller, selon le récit qu'il en a fait plus
tard.
Prison > house arrest, > once freed - he was allowed to go to Boston for medical treatment - he fled - back to Geneva! - and
a court case took place (2016.) Pierre de Preux, a well known lawyer here, represented him. Imho the state prosecutor (= DA) was
brave to take on this case. It was nevertheless shelved for lack of evidence.
Killing off critics / potential trouble makers / other / takes different forms in different régimes.
In the US for ex. no big show is made, and the death is classed as suicide, car accident, druggie death, mystery fall / drowning,
etc. no matter how weird the circumstances. In other lands, it is deemed necessary to demonstrate the power of the Overlords,
who can organise 15 ppl, a stark warning is projected.
On one hand, the quantity of black flag incidents is increasing, and that leads to low quality at many occasions. Ukrainians
in particular excel in making most laughable incidents and the British seem to be influenced. Babchenko was killed, his murder
condemned by Her Majesty Foreign Office and then got resurected. Brits seem to liked that, as exemplified by heroics of Sir Gavin,
the Lord Defender of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Island of Man etc. etc.) on the frontline of the Free Ukraine.
not seen till now though is any questioning of Bellingcat's credentials in mainstream
media. So let me hand you over, without further ado and with hearty if surprised approval,
to Mary Dejevsky: not known as a Kremlin stooge or Putin troll. Yet here she is, in today's
Independent, asking in all sincerity and with admirable bluntness just WTF is Bellingcat?
"... its russia and chinas job to assist america to reach the acceptance stage as peacefully as possible while allowing as much face saving as possible for washington and their ruling class. at the end of the day everyone wants to go on living. the next 15 years ought to be quite exciting. ..."
SKRIPALMANIA. Has now been completely outsourced to Bellingcat. Which tells the discerning observer two things: 1) there is
no evidence 2) the truth is probably the opposite. (And for those of you who take Bellingcat seriously: become discerning.)
To those of you who are like myself deeply sceptical about this story can I recommend this article in the UK Independent newspaper.
We should be asking for answers about the Skripals and Bellingcat – and not just from Russia. Mary Dejevsky.
Higgins has entered the polite academic space both in the Uk and the US in lightening speed. And as a result of that got special
attention by media. Not only that, but in the US he additionally joined an important cog of the EU-US think thank world. The Atlantic
Council made him a non-resident "Senior Fellow". As expert in digital forensics, open source and the future of Europe.
When the huge open source "gold rush" caught my attention in the early post 9/11 years, all the excited members I witnessed
more close up were quite system conform. That was after the Iraq war intelligence expertise. That's why it made me wonder. Thus,the
story of Eliot Higgins seems no outlier from my rather limited perspective.
And yes, I am with Paul Robinson, who a while ago noticed the same contradictions as Mary Dejevsky. On one hand the Russians
seem to be omnipotent, on the other they have all these bungling secret service members that are so easy to out. But notice not
by a bunch of laymen, but by a crowd led by a serious senior expert and academic. ;)
Higgins has entered the polite academic space both in the Uk and the US in lightening speed. And as a result of that got special
attention by media. Not only that, but in the US he additionally joined an important cog of the EU-US think thank world. The Atlantic
Council made him a non-resident "Senior Fellow". As expert in digital forensics, open source and the future of Europe.
When the huge open source "gold rush" caught my attention in the early post 9/11 years, all the excited members I witnessed
more close up were quite system conform. That was after the Iraq war intelligence expertise. That's why it made me wonder. Thus,the
story of Eliot Higgins seems no outlier from my rather limited perspective.
And yes, I am with Paul Robinson, who a while ago noticed the same contradictions as Mary Dejevsky. On one hand the Russians
seem to be omnipotent, on the other they have all these bungling secret service members that are so easy to out. But notice not
by a bunch of laymen, but by a crowd led by a serious senior expert and academic. ;)
I think some people here are actually taking Eliott Higgins far too seriously...he is still an uneducated underwear salesman...and
acts like it...case in point his recent twitter outburst at Ted Postol, calling him an 'idiot'...that just shows what a substance
free clown this guy is...
I briefly looked at that blog article linked to by snowflake and it is basically verbal diarrhea...bottom line is that Higgins
and that Bellincat 'outfit' are best simply ignored...not worth the time or mental bandwidth to even think about...
Atlantic Council has a very great Ph.D consultant, and strategists' strategist and tacticians' tactician, Dr. Blank. He, of all
places, taught in US Army War College. He taught, of course, about Russia, since he has Ph.D in Soviet/Russian "history" or whatever
passes as such in US "Russian Studies" field.
His strategic concepts are so devoid of even basic high school level knowledge of Russia (and her geography, BTW) that one
is forced to ask how is it even possible to have this kind of "experts"? Among many outlandish ideas Dr. Blank proposed in his
academic career dedicated to fighting evil Russians was to send US Navy to the Azov Sea to demonstrate the US Naval might.
This was one of the most profound facepalm moments of my life--I mean it. Not only Dr. Blank has no clue about Russia, he also
has no clue about US Navy. Yet, he is an expert, alright.
You left the best part out of that State Department policy statement. He announced a new position, the Senior Advisor for Russian
Malign Activities and Trends or SARMAT for short. That's straight out of the axis of evil mindset. How can we have a sober and
productive policy towards Russia with crap like this?
I thought that was from Duffleblog but you're right:
https://www.state.gov/p/eur...
Third para from the bottom. Part of that $380 million must be Bellingcat's budget.
I can't wait to see what awful person is selected for this role. Also, Sarmat is also the name for Russia's newest ICBM, which
makes one wonder what was on the back of their minds when they came up with this one.
washingtons foreign policy visa vie russia and china is as yet unable to reach the psychological stage of sublimation. frustrated,
angry and demoralised that they can not militarily atttack russia once and for all putting paid ....to who is the biggest dog
in the yard...... american elites lash out ineffectually using various media, economic and financial games to assuage their inability
to get their way.
each iteration of this plan becomes weaker and less effective than the previous one leading to more rage at being thwarted.
where the current crop of american ruling elites are concerned we are talking about 2 factors.... a profound lack of a really
good cosmopolitan education and a near total lack of appreciation for how weak the american industrial base has become the past
30 years (you can not intimidate powerful nations if your military technology is 1 or more generations BEHIND)
an apt understanding of washingtons dilemma is best grasped reading the kubler-ross stages of grieving over a dying loved one.
in this case the dying loved one is american exceptionalism and the l godlike power that goes with it for the 1/100 or 1%.
its russia and chinas job to assist america to reach the acceptance stage as peacefully as possible while allowing as much
face saving as possible for washington and their ruling class. at the end of the day everyone wants to go on living. the next
15 years ought to be quite exciting.
"... What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach – extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders (according to her recent Amappaling interview). ..."
The whole Magnitsky Act thing was supposed to be a convenient tool of western foreign
policy cloaked in Human Rights sugar to justify punished the usual suspects ad
perpituitam, not for attacking allies. It looks like some US politicians actually think it is
about human rights! They'll need to practice their best acting to explain why some are on the
list and others aren't, along with compliant media and governments.
What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach –
extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The
implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders
(according to her recent Amappaling interview).
Trump is also promising a rapid USG reaction to India buying S-400s, so it really is time
to stock up on the popcorn. I knew for sure that this year would certainly be more
interesting than last year, but 2019 should be a corker. Woo.
The OPCW, like the Council of Europe, the OSCE, WADA and others have become deeply partizan
and anti-Russian organizations since the 1990s. A handful of members put out a 'report' on
whatever and claim that they have 'evidence' which they should be trusted on rather than
provide. The rest of them go along with it. The only reason that makes sense for the
attempted 'hack' on the OPCW is that Russia is being denied access to information. The
argument, like everything else bullshit from the West is ' You don't show the evidence to
the arsonist ' , sic MH17 because it has already been judged and found guilty.
So far WADA had to row back because of the Schimdt Report (which the media of course did
not report) and all the reinstated athletes, Russia has suspended payments and may well pull
out of the CoE because is it sick and tired of being bombarded with bs at every meeting as if
medieval Bear baiting has returned in a modern form (it has).
All these organizations are destroying themselves. If anything all this shows how weak the
West's soft power has become that they need to throw everything including the kitchen
sink at Russia. They don't like resistance, let alone pushback. They're more careful about
China of course and as we saw recently in the South Pacific the Chinese simply won't be cowed
or intimidated.
As for the allegations about China, we'll most of us have followed the Snowden revelations
about the USA and its Five Eyes global surveillance and infiltration, so its no surprise that
China has been running its own operations. It's what countries do, though apparently they're
not supposed to. Remember that back in 2002 it was discovered that the US bugged the 767
of then Chinese Premier Jian Xiao-Ping. * I think that all this reporting is a sign of
desperation by the powers that be because all else has failed so far and they need to keep
the narrative going.
By wrapping it all up together with a pretty pink bow it is to make it ' undeniable
' in the eyes of people who should know better.
The temptation by Russia will be to publicly burn western spies in Russia, but it is just
another in a long line of provocations to get Russia to respond angrily and make a big
mistake. I can imagine RT being banned and other measures if things start to spiral.
This whole G(R)U story was ready to go at an appropriate moment, and I suspect one of the
factors was Putin's recent comments about Skripal that had captured the world media's ear. By
piling their report on shortly afterwards, they hope to hijack and amplify their
narrative.
But, it's words, not meaningful actions. Either they will try and use this to kick off a
whole new level of sanctions that they haven't before (high value, sensitive stuff like
aerospace, tech etc.). It is possible the timing of this is a last ditch effort to try and
get U-rope on board to stop NordSteam II or anything they think they can squeeze through.
It's weakness through desperation and also to divert from their failures elsewhere.
Or burn western spies in other countries that are far less friendly
It is interesting that one of the groups doxxing Russian 'spies' claim to be volunteers
and patriots. No-one believes that in the slightest apart from morons. Like BellEnd cat, the
number of cut-outs/plausible denial groups has mushroomed and ebb and flow with need. The
volunteer claim is no protection.
How can you ask such a question. Holland is a US vassal and the US uses its vassals to give
its actions legitimacy by claiming that there is an "international" reaction to "Russian
aggression". This is why the US always attacks countries around the world as part of some BS
coalition of its own vassals. It is claiming its aggression is actually justified
international action.
The Dutch recently signed a big order to have 28 of their AH-64D Apache's 'upgraded' to the
'E' model which is really a re-manufactue and upgrade (from sand and heavy use in helping the
US bomb tribesmen far away), & their Patriots to be modernized too.
Because the so called chemical weapons watchdog, which the British government has recently
made judge, jury and exucationer as regards all incidences of alleged uses of chemical agents
as a weapon, namely it can now accuse and condemn whom it thinks are perpetrators of such
chemical attacks, is based in The Hague, where the wicked Russians have allegedly been
hacking etc. and, in general, up to their vile and nefarious deeds, as is, of course, in
their nature of doing things, because they are vile barbarians, subhuman even
I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a
translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:
September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so)
tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve
agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will
find the following:
"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH
AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated
laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the
United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)
This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they
did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the
'authorities" had given them.
Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:
"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a
sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from
the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)
In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the
sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be
"of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )
Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in
Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what
"the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was
plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance
cannot be ruled out).
(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would
transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)
Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of
any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding"
mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:
"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of
the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such
as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the
investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are
being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in
question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples,
the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the
laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent
processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means
the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott
Ritter)
Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the
(terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where
they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other
artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they
were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.
"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment
on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate
laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like
substances.
In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in
determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control
of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."
By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH
"experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent
Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:
"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian
government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed
somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven
Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team
Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the
Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS
MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are
allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working
mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition
NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".
But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with
the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW
confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all
contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their
dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:
"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all
know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so
we owe them no respect in return".
And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:
The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were
"incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387
of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in
sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de
Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of
work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real
thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they
had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International
Court of Crimes and the International Court of Justice are based in The Hague. There may be
other reasons as well: the Dutch must have a fair few skeletons in their collective closet
and the US could very well target one of these and bring the entire wardrobe crashing down
and exposing all its sordid secrets. One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a
major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the US. http://www.nomoretax.eu/netherlands-tax-haven/
I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a
translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:
September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so)
tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve
agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will
find the following:
"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH
AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated
laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the
United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)
This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they
did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the
'authorities" had given them.
Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:
"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a
sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from
the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)
In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the
sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be
"of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )
Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in
Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what
"the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was
plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance
cannot be ruled out).
(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would
transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)
Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of
any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding"
mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:
"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of
the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such
as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the
investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are
being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in
question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples,
the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the
laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent
processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means
the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott
Ritter)
Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the
(terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where
they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other
artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they
were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.
"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment
on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate
laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like
substances.
In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in
determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control
of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."
By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH
"experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent
Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:
"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian
government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed
somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven
Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team
Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the
Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS
MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are
allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working
mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition
NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".
But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with
the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW
confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all
contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their
dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:
"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all
know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so
we owe them no respect in return".
And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:
The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were
"incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387
of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in
sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de
Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of
work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real
thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they
had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
Explosive. Nobody but Americans can be trusted to run international institutions, especially
when they are bought and paid for by the USA. Hey, that'd be a good job for Travis Tygart. He
has been chafing lately about the limits of his power to get at Russia from USADA.
The pace of events seems to be taking on momentum, as if it is leading up to something,
and there's that kind of stillness in the air, while sounds seem far away and tinny, like
just before a big storm breaks.
Alexander Mishkin, the second man accused of involvement in the Skripal assassination plot, was likely to have been sent
on the mission because he was a trained doctor capable of providing an antidote in case the novichok attack went wrong, according
to security sources.
Dr Mishkin, like the GRU colleague who travelled with him to Salisbury, was made a 'Hero of the Russian Federation' with
Vladimir Putin personally presenting him with the award, according to the investigative website Bellingcat.
The 'antidote' to nerve-agent exposure is atropine, which is broadly marketed to world defense forces in an auto-injector. Your
medical expertise in dispensing it is to remove the protective cap, and strike it against your thigh in the muscle, point-first
– the internal spring does the rest, right through your clothing. We used to practice it regularly in NBCD training, except the
fluid in training injectors is just water. Some crybaby pointed out the needle might pick up a fragment of cloth on its way in,
and cause an infection, so we stopped doing it with real needles, and now you just get a thump against your leg from the spring.
Military forces are also trained to administer atropine to stricken comrades who were overcome before they could react. Just
be sure to give him his own atropine and not yours, and push the needle through his pocket-flap afterward and then bend it over,
so that anyone happening on the scene after you have left will know he has already been given atropine and not administer another
dose. Atropine overdose causes its own set of problems.
I think it's pretty clear that it does not 'make eminent sense' to have a 'qualified military doctor along in case something
went wrong with the Novichok', since anyone can administer Atropine and there is an enormous worldwide base of soldiers and ex-soldiers
who could do it as well as anyone else. Horseshit piled on top of horseshit.
For some bizarre reason this UK fairy tale requires many Russians. One isn't enough to smear some alleged top secret nerve agent
on a door knob (at least in one of the dozens of contradictory theories spewed by Scotland Yard). Wearing gloves (e.g. store bought
nitrile ones which would stop this poison, unlike latex ones) is clearly considered too much intellectual effort for Russian untermenschen
and they need a doctor to tag along. This fictional doctor claim is patently absurd. A doctor without hospital facilities is nothing
but a paramedic and as you rightly describe no such person is needed to administer atropine.
The average media sap in the UK and NATzO apparently can't be bothered to do any thinking. The best assassination plot would
involve only a single agent and not a handful. Even freaking video games have the lone assassin meme repeated. One agent could
also have a well established cover story. A gang of assassins would essentially be evidence against itself. A whole specially
designed bottle of nerve agent is ridiculous and unnecessary. And having it disposed of in a way that it can be found by some
homeless junkies is simply not credible. Don't they have sewer grates in the UK?
Vis the Dutch push for a new sanctions regime for Human Rights abusers, apart from global
sponsors of Islamic terrorism who also happen to have $$$, the obvious takeaway that only
just occurred to me is that the push for a European Magnitsky Act must have failed.
This is exactly the same thing, they just dropped the name. The EU is not united and
I don't see the Netherlands as having enough influence in the EU without the UK.
Where would we be without solid, honest citizen journalism like this? Bellingcat has passed
the CIA, MI5, Scotland Yard and the FBI and never looked back. In fact, we have not heard
Peep One from any of them since Bellingcat burst on the scene, and the British press goes
straight to print from its reports, to hell with waiting for informed comment from the
intelligence services or law enforcement.
Come to think about it, what are their countries paying them for?
I'm looking forward to the first Bellingcat spin-offs.
Eliot Higgins – Special Invesigator featuring Tom Cruise and introducing Sparky his
lovable mongrel dog which miraculously survived the Salisbury Novichok Massacre and can sniff
out GRU agents a mile away.
And following temporary employment reviewing orders at a Leicester UK women's underwear
manufacturer, the unemployed Higgins then "dispensed with looking for another job so that he
could devote himself to blogging full-time" and has now pogressed to being a senior fellow in
the "Digital Forensic Research Laboratory" and the "Future Europe Initiative", projects run
by the Washington, D.C based "think tank" the "Atlantic Council".
Higgins hard at work researching
A "kept man"? His wife must bring home the bacon then.
Well, she would if she were not a Turk.
The then 32-year-old Higgins started blogging about the civil war in Syria from his home
as Brown Moses: "He had no formal intelligence training or security clearance that gave him
access to classified documents. He could not speak or read Arabic. He had never set foot in
the Middle East, unless you count the time he changed planes in Dubai en route to Manila, or
his trip to visit his in-laws in Turkey".
As far as I am aware, he still has no credentials for his chosen field, albeit he is now a
"fellow" of this and that. He has also since bursting into the bloggosphere considerably put
on weight:
Higgins belongs to an obsessive coterie of self-appointed military intelligence experts
who use social media to piece together critical details of faraway conflicts, often well
ahead of seasoned professionals. Frequently self-taught and operating far outside the
military-industrial complex, these amateur analysts have honed a novel set of sleuthing
skills that fuse old-fashioned detective work with new sources of intelligence generated by
cell phone cameras and spread by social networks. Syria's war, widely considered the most
documented conflict in history, has turned social media into a weapon of mass detection --
critical both for fighters on the ground and for faraway observers trying to make sense of
the conflict.
The mind boggles: he and his fellow "amateur analysts" are often well ahead of seasoned
professionals. Frequently self-taught and operating far outside the military-industrial
complex !!!
Once upon a time, nobody would dare to do what they are doing because of the danger of a
ruinous lawsuit. But so long as he continues accusing the right people, the west will
safeguard him from that as best it can. Maybe that's the way to go. They've left themselves
without a retreat, saying this and that are 'confirmed'. Sue the outfit.
Note how Bellingtwat states that it has "conclusively" established the real identity of
Petrov on evidence gleaned from "multiple open sources" and "testimony from people familiar
with the person" in question.
How do they do this?
First to the post again and well ahead of all the Western intelligence agencies, which are
obviously understaffed with incompetents and not in possession of state-of-the-art means of
gathering intelligence such as . errrr, Facebook?
A few days ago, that lying old slag May appeared on stage at the Conservative Party annual
conference with Abba's "Dancing Queen" playing in the bacground. May appeared to be trying to
dance to the Abba hit. What a cupid old stunt!
And yesterday at an EUSSR Brussels conference, EU chief-executive and piss-artist Juncker
appears to have been possibly trying to take the piss out of that old, lying bag May's
gyrations:
Yes, their resources really do beat all, don't they? Able to trawl through Russians' private
records at will, even those ominously marked, "Not for public release". But then, they have
lots of willing helpers inside Russia, which the western intelligence agencies officially
have not. Makes you wonder how Russia can miss catching them, innit, considering the
intertubes are strictly controlled in Russia and all their intelligence transactions are in
the public domain? I mean, with their troll farms and all their snoopy organizations?
Bellingcrap could have just mentioned its sources during the course of its article instead of
proclaiming that it's going to detail in another post to be supposedly published today (9
October 2018) the methodology it and The Insider Russia used and the information trail
established. Perhaps a sign that Bellingcrap is starting to feel some pressure to lift its
game to a level acceptable to its masters at The Atlantic Council?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. BellEndCat can only manage the former.
Still, it's good enough for the BBC who this morning spoke to a (former?) Georgian minister
who was saying that if the West was united and stopped Russia from invading Georgia in 2008,
then Ukraine, Crimea, Skripals etc. wouldn't have happened, followed by BBC correspondent
Norton who said that 'was about right'.
A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects
to make plants more resilient by altering their genes. Some experts say the work may be seen
as a potential biological weapon.
In an opinion paper published Thursday in the journal Science, the authors say the U.S.
needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose of its Insect Allies
project to avoid being perceived as hostile to other countries. Other experts expressed
ethical and security concerns with the research, which seeks to transmit protective traits to
crops already growing in the field .
####
The rest at the link.
Using the US's own definitions that it has used to place sanctions on other countries,
this is clearly a dual-use technology, i.e. civilian with military applications (which
is just about the same as any fancy satellited up in space etc.). Conclusion? The US must
sanction itself!
The US has been using insects as bioweapons for decades (including attacking Cuba and the
USSR). The current development program is using this insect research as a cover. Its real
function is to develop targeted genetic weapons designed to exterminate ethic groups. These
weapons are beyond any "mass destruction" and are pure genocide devices. Anyone who thinks
that this sort of research is unlikely is a retard without a clue. There is a reason why
certain US companies were buying up Russian human bio-waste (e.g. amputated limbs, cadavers).
If anyone thinks that the US will care about collateral damage to neighbouring Slavic
countries, then they are full on retarded as well. In 1990 Americans could not tell the
difference between Ukrainians and Russians (and even Chechens). Now for purely political
reasons they pretend to see every microscopic difference. The US has no love for Poland,
Ukraine, or any other new Europe country. They are merely cannon fodder for its imperial
ambitions. The hate that Poles and other Slavic states have for Russia is pathological.
Poland is basically a German branch plant economy. Tell me why Poland should have more love
for Germany than for Russia? And don't invoke communism since Russians were not privileged
compared to Poles before 1991. It was, in fact, the other way around.
The US is always asking to be trusted with some fearsome new capability, on the grounds that
its values are a fail-safe – it is so innately good that it could never use such
capabilities for evil. And it seems obsessed with modifications to achieve super-plants so
that one potato will feed a family of eight, and suchlike – what's wrong with food the
way nature intended it to be?
If you would decide whether a technology or process should be viewed as a threat, just
imagine it was announced by Russia. The USA would scream its head off.
I can't help noticing as well that some of its changes seem geared toward not having to do
anything about global warming, continuing to rely on a petroleum-dominated energy policy and
so forth, by engineering a food supply that will flourish through as changing environment. If
it is successful in that aim it is assured global domination, as the food supply of other
countries could vanish if the country did not sign on to the US technology agenda. America
would not have to threaten anyone's crops with secret-agent bugs. It could just go on as it
is doing, and continue to contribute to global warming.
A suspected third member of the Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack
has been named, according to a respected Russian news website.
Sergey Fedotov, 45, travelled to the UK on the same day as the two assassins already
charged by British authorities – and boarded the same flight home.
The Telegraph had previously reported the existence of a third member of the Russian
intelligence hit squad and a trawl of flight records by the Fontanka news agency matched it
to Fedotov.
According to Fontanka, Fedotov flew to the UK on a passport whose number differs by
only a few digits from those used by the two GRU military intelligence agents officially
wanted for the nerve agent attack.
It is almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias. No traces
of Sergei Fedotov have been found in documentary databases or on social media. He has no
property, vehicles or telephone numbers registered to his name in Russia, according to
Fontanka.
No "alleged"in "Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack but It is
almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias.
"... As many, including Murray have pointed out, the story the UK is telling displays none of the tradecraft that one would expect from a sophisticated intelligence service. ..."
So little about the mutating, public narrative makes sense, including motive, whether Russian
or British. Some suggest that the British find it useful to paint an ongoing story for the
public of Russian depravity and duplicity. If that were the case, why paint Russia as the
gang that couldn't shoot straight - too inept to constitute a serious threat?
As many, including Murray have pointed out, the story the UK is telling displays none
of the tradecraft that one would expect from a sophisticated intelligence service.
Very convincing. This Israeli expert blows up the UK's narrative in a few well-chosen
one-liners.
"If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come
to the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two
alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, leave their fingerprints there, get a
visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies'
detective novels."
An Israeli expert on international terrorism, writer Alexander Brass, shared his view on the
case of the Skripals poisoning in Salisbury. Brass draws parallels between the work of the
special services of Israel and Russia – he believes that if to compare the British
version with the practice of the special agents, then the absurdity becomes obvious.
"Alexander, so what, in your opinion, happened in Salisbury?"
-There was a rough provocation by the British special services. In my opinion, this is
obvious.
"There's a lot of stupidity on stupidity." The story with Petrov and Boshirov does not hold
up any professional peer review. According to the Brits, the Skripals were poisoned by GRU
agents (this is what the department is called, although this is now the Main Directorate of the
RF General Staff).
I want to explain how the special services work. If you need someone to eliminate, then this
is a very serious operation, which is being prepared for a long time. A very significant
material and human resource is allocated. We are talking about dozens of employees. On the
territory of this state, an "advanced command post" is being created.
In the operation, a technical support group, a logistic group, a cover group, an external
surveillance group and a group of performers are involved.
The performers themselves appear at the very last moment. They do not go anywhere, lighting
up on cameras, do not use public transport, but move on rented cars, which they do not rent
themselves. And the more they will not stop in hotels, but will live on safe houses provided by
the logistics group.
Such groups do not come under the passport of their country, do not go to the embassy for
obtaining a visa, leaving fingerprints. This is complete nonsense. Professionals do not work
that way.
If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come to
the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two
alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, leave their fingerprints there, get a
visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies'
detective novels.
"... And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag operations? ..."
"... As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5. ..."
"... If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ? ..."
"... The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017 Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed. ..."
"... "The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from the overt and covert actions of British governments." ..."
"... "The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups." ..."
"... "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi] – clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is urgently needed." ..."
"... In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard the guards themselves? ..."
An intelligence service given free rein to commit 'serious crimes' in its own country is an
intelligence service that is the enemy of its people. The quite astounding
revelation that Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5, has enjoyed this very freedom
for decades has only just been made public at a special tribunal in London, set up to investigate the country's
intelligence services at the behest of a coalition of human rights groups, alleging a pattern
of illegality up to and including collusion in murder.
The hitherto MI5 covert policy sanctioning its agents to commit and/or solicit serious
crimes, as and when adjudged provident, is known as the Third Direction. This codename has been
crafted, it would appear, by someone with a penchant for all things James Bond within an agency
whose average operative is more likely to be 5'6" and balding with a paunch and bad teeth than
any kind of lantern-jawed 007.
The Pat Finucane Centre ,
one of the aforementioned human rights groups involved in bringing about this tribunal
investigation (Investigatory Powers Tribunal, to give it its Sunday name) into the nefarious
activities of Britain's domestic intelligence agency, issued a damning
statement in response to the further revelation that former Prime Minister David Cameron
introduced oversight guidelines with regard to the MI5 covert third direction policy back in
2012.
Cameron's decision to do so, the group claims, was far from nobly taken:
"It can be no coincidence that Prime Minister David Cameron issued new guidelines,
however flawed, on oversight of MI5 just two weeks before publication of the De Silva report
into the murder of Pat Finucane. The PM was clearly alive to the alarming evidence which was
about to emerge of the involvement of the Security Service in the murder. To date no-one within
a state agency has been held accountable. The latest revelations make the case for an
independent inquiry all the more compelling."
Pat Finucane, a Belfast Catholic, plied his trade as a human rights lawyer at a time when
the right to be fully human was denied the minority Catholic community of the small and
enduring outpost of British colonialism in the north east corner of Ireland, otherwise known as
Northern Ireland. He was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1989, back when the
decades-long conflict euphemistically referred to as the Troubles still raged, claiming victims both
innocent and not on all sides.
Unlike the vast majority of those killed and murdered in the course of this brutal conflict,
Finucane's murder sparked a long and hard fought struggle for justice by surviving family
members, friends and campaigners. They allege – rather convincingly, it should be said
– that it was carried out with the active collusion of MI5.
Stepping back and casting a wider view over this terrain, the criminal activities of
Britain's intelligence services constitute more than enough material for a book of considerable
heft. How fortunate then that just such a book has already been
written.
In his 'Dead Men Talking: Collusion, Cover Up and Murder in Northern Ireland's Dirty War',
author Nicholas Davies "provides information on a number of the killings [during the
Troubles], which were authorized at the highest level of MI5 and the British
government."
But over and above the crimes of MI5 in Ireland, what else have those doughty defenders of
the realm been up to over the years? After all, what is the use of having a license to engage
in serious criminal activity, including murder and, presumably, torture, if you're not prepared
to use (abuse) it? It begs the question of how many high profile deaths attributed to suicide,
natural causes, and accident down through the years have been the fruits of MI5 at work?
And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag
operations?
As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and
more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely
described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the
egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5.
What we are bound to state, doing so without fear of contradiction, is this particular
revelation opens up a veritable Pandora's Box of grim possibilities when it comes to the
potential crimes committed by Britain's domestic intelligence agency, ensuring that a full and
vigorous investigation and public inquiry is now both necessary and urgent.
If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit
the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and
organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ?
The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017
Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency,
leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work
of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed.
As Curtis writes,
"The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent
people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from
the overt and covert actions of British governments."
In the same report he arrives at a conclusion both damning and chilling:
"The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its
foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground
in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups."
Finally: "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home
Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi]
– clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is
urgently needed."
In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency
with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will
guard the guards themselves?
Edward R Murrow
puts it rather more bluntly: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
Sooner or later, people in Britain are going to have to wake up to who the real enemy
is.
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal.
British intelligence services have a lot of things to explain now. But who will ask them ?
Notable quotes:
"... The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. ..."
"... What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia. ..."
"... There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal's MI6 handler Pablo Miller's work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump. ..."
"... Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia had the motive, are massive lies on both counts. ..."
"... Yet no motive has been adduced for an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone ..."
"... The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International Space Station. ..."
"... With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house. ..."
"... Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours, and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the nerve agent ultimately ineffective? ..."
"... Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly substance, of which a tiny amount can kill? ..."
"... I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British government and its corporate lackies. ..."
"... During a visit to Salisbury and Amesbury, the UK home secretary said: "We don't want to jump to conclusions." but they sure were with the first poisoning. Time will tell. ..."
Craig Murray: "The Holes in the Official Skripal Story"
... ... ...
" The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the
corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made,
even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that
finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents,
the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia
and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility
in Uzbekistan in 2002.
Furthermore, it was the USA who decommissioned the facility and removed equipment back to
the United States. At least two key scientists from the programme moved to the United States.
Formulae for several novichok have been published for over a decade. The USA, UK and Iran have
definitely synthesised a number of novichok formulae and almost certainly others have done so
too. Dozens of states have the ability to produce novichok, as do many sophisticated non-state
actors.
As for motive, the Russian motive might be revenge, but whether that really outweighs the
international opprobrium incurred just ahead of the World Cup, in which so much prestige has
been invested, is unclear." Craig Murray
What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a
motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to
do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and
those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military
industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia.
There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest
with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal's MI6 handler Pablo
Miller's work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump.
Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia
had the motive, are massive lies on both counts.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei
Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow.
In an effort to shore up the government narrative, at the time of the Amesbury attack the
security services put out through Pablo Miller's long term friend, the BBC's Mark Urban, that
the Russians "may have been" tapping Yulia Skripal's phone, and the claim that this was strong
evidence that the Russians had indeed been behind the attack.
But think this through. If that were true, then the Russians deliberately attacked at a time
when Yulia was in the UK rather than when Sergei was alone. Yet no motive has been adduced for
an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have
painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone. Furthermore, it is
pretty natural that Russian intelligence would tap the phone of Yulia, and of Sergei if they
could. The family of double agents are normal targets. I have no doubt in the least, from
decades of experience as a British diplomat, that GCHQ have been tapping Yulia's phone. Indeed,
if tapping of phones is seriously put forward as evidence of intent to murder, the British
government must be very murderous indeed.
Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the
suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the
centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a
long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International
Space Station. They can kill an old bloke in Salisbury. Why did the Russians not know that the
dose from the door handle was not fatal? Why would trained assassins leave crucial evidence
lying around in a public place in Salisbury? Why would they be conducting any part of the
operation with the novichok in a public area in central Salisbury?
Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective
gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6,
and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard,
some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least
five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and
instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally
close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even
though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the
Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours,
and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for
help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random
completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the
nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the
doorknob, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were
affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene
where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly
substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks,
possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed
container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has
this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again? If Rowley and Sturgess had direct
contact straight from the container, why did they not both die quickly? Why had four months
searching of Salisbury and a massive police, security service and military operation not found
this container, if Rowley and Sturgess could?
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory
I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British
government and its corporate lackies.
My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.
Has anyone considered if Rowley and Sturgess might in fact be the actual ones that put the
novichok on the Skripal's doorknob four months ago? Perhaps paid to do so by Israel or
Ukraine?
"Searches began on 6 July of Rowley's home and it was not until Wednesday (11th) that the
bottle was discovered by officers, who were battling searing sunshine and protective suits to
stop them being exposed to the lethal toxin." "...As a precaution Public Health England
continues to advise the public not to pick up any strange items such as syringes, needles,
cosmetics or similar objects made of materials such as metal, plastic or glass."
Obviously, the bottle was not simply lying around in plain sight. Would appear to be drug
related? Strange. Would be nice if the British were more forthcoming. Another interesting bit
is why are the British now, not jumping to conclusions?
"Sajid Javid has said there are no plans to impose fresh sanctions on Russia following the
latest nerve agent poisoning in Wiltshire.
During a visit to Salisbury and Amesbury, the UK home secretary said: "We don't want to
jump to conclusions." but they sure were with the first poisoning. Time will tell.
They are now saying it looked like a bottle of perfume. The story just gets weirder.
Novichok nerve agent that killed a mother-of-three in Salisbury was in a PERFUME bottle
she may have sprayed herself with, her poisoned lover's brother reveals
Charlie Rowley, 45, was left fighting for his life after he was exposed to Novichok
His partner Dawn Sturgess, 44, died after she was poisoned by the nerve agent
Matthew Rowley said the poison was in a perfume bottle his brother picked up ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
So how did the homeless woman's partner come into contact with, but, nobody else? How long
does Novochok last, once made up? Hours or months?
Bases on VX (the most similar nerve agent to Novochok) it would last days, except if kept
sealed.
It's beginning to look like someone from Porton Down is the source, unless the perfume
bottle was used to transport the Novochok into the country and then tossed.
The fundamental flaw in the reasoning of this article is that it assumes the poisoning was
meant to be kept secret. If you are going to poison someone with Polonium or Novichuk you are
sending a distinct message about where the poison came from.
You could kill someone with alflatoxin and no one would know. There a loads of ways a
state player can kill people in an untraceable way,
So the purpose of the poisoning was to send a message - not to eliminate a threat,
Once you see that as the purpose of the poisoning, the question becomes is who wants to
tell the world that they can kill at long range and little detection with sophisticated
neurochemical weapons. . . .
"... But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets. ..."
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia
was ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He
presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned
orator.
The official story, says the expert, is "stupidity on stupidity."
I agree with him.
The question is: Why did the British government think that they could get away with such an
obvious hoax? The answer is that the people in Western countries don't know anything about
anything. They live in a world in which their reality is a product of the propaganda fed to
them by "news organizations" and Hollywood movies. They only receive controlled explanations.
Therefore, they know nothing about how anything really functions. Read the account by the
Israeli expert to understand the vast difference between the British government's hoax and the
reality of how an assassination is conducted.
The Israeli expert got me to wondering why the British government thought anyone would fall
for such a transparently false story. Having just read David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth
Woodworth's new book, 9/11 Unmasked , and David Ray Griffin's 2017 book, Bush and
Cheney: How They Runed America and the World , the answer became obvious. The British
government had watched the idiot Western populations fall for the official 9/11 conspiracy
story in which a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes and without the support of any
intelligence agency, caused the entire security apparatus ot the United States to fail utterly,
and no one was held responsible for the total failure. The British government concluded that
anyone who could possibly believe such an obviously false story would believe anything.
I remember coming to that conclusion years ago before the official conspiracy theory in the
9/11 Commission Report was blown to pieces by thousands of scientists, structural engineers,
high-rise architects, military and civilian pilots, first responders on the scene, and a large
number of former high government officials both in the US and abroad.
At first I did not connect the zionist neoconservatives' plot, outlined in their public
writings (for example, Norman Podhorttz in Commentary ) to destroy 7 Middle Eastern
countries in five years (also described by General Wesley Clark) and their statement that they
needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to implement their plan, with the attack on the World Trade Center.
But as I watched the twin towers blow up floor by floor it was completely obvious that these
were not builldings falling down due to asymetrical structural damage and limited, low
temperature office fires that probably did not even warm the massive steel structure to the
point of being warm to the touch. When you watch the videos you see buildings blowing up. It is
as clear as day. You see each floor blow. You see steel beams and other debris fly out the
sides as projectiles. It is amazing that any human is so completely stupid as to think what he
is seeing with his own eyes are buildings falling down from structural damage. But it required
many years before half of the American people realized that the official account was pure
bullshit.
Today polls indicate that a majority of people do not believe the official 9/11 propaganda
any more than they believe the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin attack, or the report from Admiral McCain (father of
John) erasing Israel's responsibility for the destruction of the USS Liberty and its crew
during LBJ's administration, or that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or Iran
had nukes, or the many lies about about Syria, Libya's Gaddafi, or Somalia, or Yemen, or the
"Russian invasion of Georgia," the "Russian invasion of Ukraine." But at each time the idiot
population, no matter how many times they had learned that the governments lied to them
initially believed the next lie, thereby permitting the lie to become fact. Thus, the idiot
Western populations created their own world of controlled explanations.
Only a deranged person could believe anything any Western government says. But the Western
world has a huge number of deranged people. There are plenty of them to validate the next
official lie. The ignorant fools make it possible for Western governments to continue their
policy of lies that are driving the world to extinction in a war with Russia and China.
Perhaps I am being too hard on the insouciant Western populations. Ron Unz is no moron. Yet
he accepted the transparently false 9/11 story until he started to pay attention. Once he paid
attention, he realized it was false. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/
Like myself, Ron Unz has noticed that the 9/11 Truth movement has succeeded in totally
discrediting the official 9/11 story. But the unanswered question remains: Who did it?
Unz says it was Israel, not Bush & Cheney. This is also the position of Christopher
Bollyn. It seems certain that Israel was involved. We have the fact of the Mossad agents caught
celebrating as they filmed the collalpse of the WTC towers. Obviously, they knew in advance and
were set up ready to film. Later they were shown on Israeli TV where they stated that they had
been sent to film the destruction of the buildings.
We also have the fact of the large profits made by someone that the US government continues
to protect on shorting the stock of the airlines, the planes of which were allegely
hijacked.
In other words, the 9/11 attack was known in advance, as was the destruction of WTC building
7 as evidenced by the BBC reporter standing in front of the still standing building accouncing
its destruction about a half hour before it occurred.
Unz and Bollyn's case against Israel is powerful. I agree with Unz that George W. Bush was
not part of the plot. If he had been, he would have been on the scene directing America's
heroic response to the first, and only, terrorist attack on America. lnstead, Bush was moved
out of the way, and kept out of the way, while Cheney handled the situation.
I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax
9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton
received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above
the US Constitution and statutory US law.
Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support
in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the
attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.
I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax
9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton
received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above
the US Constitution and statutory US law.
Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support
in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the
attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.
The Israeli government could not have ordered the destruction of the crime scene, opposed by
the New York fire marshall as a felony. This required US government authority. The steel beams,
which showed all sorts of distortions that could only have been caused by nano-thermite were
quickly sent to Asia for reprocessing. The intense fires and molten rubble in the buildings'
remains six weeks after their collapse never received an official explanation. To this day, no
one has explained how low-temperature, smothered office fires that burned for one hour or less
melted or weakened massive steel beams and produced molten steel six weeks afterward.
Unz is correct that Israel made out like a bandit. Israel as a result of 9/11 got rid of
half of the constraints on its expansion. Only Syria and Iran remain, and the Trump regime is
pushing hard for Israel, even against Russia, a government that at its will can completely
destroy the United States and Israel, something that much of the world wishes would happen.
Unz is correct that right now the totally evil and corrupt US and Israeli governments have
the entire world on the path to extinction. However, he omits American responsibility, that of
the evil Dick Cheney, the Zionist neconservatives who are Israel's Fifth Column in America, and
the utter insouciance of the American people who do not show enough intelligence or awareness
to warrant their survival.
"... Last week the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. of illegal biological weapon research in the Tbilisi laboratory : ..."
"... The documents record the deaths of 73 people over a short period of time, indicating a test of "a highly toxic chemical or biological agents with high lethality rate," said Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian military branch responsible for defending troops from radiological, chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... The U.S. rejects the claims but it does not explain the documents , what kind of research is done near Tbilisi, and the unusual secrecy and security around the laboratory. ..."
"... It is not only the Russians and Georgians who are concerned about secret U.S. biological warfare research. German and French scientists recently raised alarm over another dubious Pentagon research project. ..."
Recent evidence about deadly tests of biological substances in Tbilisi, Georgia raised
alarm about U.S. biological weapon research in foreign countries. European scientist are
extremely concerned about a dubious research program, financed by the Pentagon, that seems
designed to spread diseases to crops, animals and people abroad. The creation of such weapons
and of special ways to distribute them is prohibited under national and international
law.
The U.S. is running biological weapon research across the globe :
Bio warfare scientists using diplomatic cover test man-made viruses at Pentagon bio
laboratories in 25 countries across the world. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program–
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union
countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
Until the mid nineteen-seventies the U.S. military
tested biological warfare weapons on U.S. people , sometimes over large areas and on
specific races. After a Congress investigation revealed the wide ranging program such testing
was moved abroad.
Private companies use U.S. government controlled laboratories in foreign countries for
secret biological research under contract of the U.S. military, the CIA and the Department of
Homeland Security. Last month the Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva
reported of one of these U.S. controlled bio-laboratories:
The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo
for a secret US military program. Internal documents, implicating US diplomats in the
transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover were leaked to me
by Georgian insiders. According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed
to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly
diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in
Georgia's capital Tbilisi.
Al Mayadeen TV broadcasted a video reportage about the laboratory and
its deadly effects on Georgian 'patients'.
The question of what really might have taken place at the secretive US-sponsored research
facility hosted by Russia's southern neighbor was raised by the Russian military on
Thursday after they studied files published online by a former Georgian minister.
The documents record the deaths of 73 people over a short period of time, indicating
a test of "a highly toxic chemical or biological agents with high lethality rate," said
Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian military branch responsible for defending troops
from radiological, chemical and biological weapons.
The U.S.
rejects the claims but it does not explain the documents , what kind of research is done near Tbilisi, and
the unusual secrecy and security around the laboratory.
It is not only the Russians and Georgians who are concerned about secret U.S.
biological warfare research. German and French scientists recently
raised alarm over another dubious Pentagon research project.
In October 2016 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced a new
project called Insect
Allies :
A new DARPA program is poised to provide an alternative to traditional agricultural threat
response, using targeted gene therapy to protect mature plants within a single growing
season. DARPA proposes to leverage a natural and very efficient two-step delivery system to
transfer modified genes to plants: insect vectors and the plant viruses they transmit. In
the process, DARPA aims to transform certain insect pests into "Insect Allies," the name of
the new effort.
The scenario DARPA describes is quite complicate. If a crop, for example maize, were
widely infected with some illness, a virus would be manipulated and applied to the crop. The
itself genetically modified virus would genetically modify the crop to 'cure' the illness.
Infected insects would be used to distribute the viruses across the fields.
The program is run
by the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) of DARPA. It does not come cheap. At least
$27 million have been committed to it. If the discussed program were for purely agricultural
purposes why would the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is part of
the Pentagon, propose and finance such research?
Scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Plön, Germany,
and the Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier, France, along with legal
scholars from the University of Freiburg point out that the method DARPA wants to
apply makes little sense for the stated agricultural purposes.
[A]n ongoing research program funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) aims to disperse infectious genetically modified viruses that have been engineered
to edit crop chromosomes directly in fields.
...
In the context of the stated aims of the DARPA program, it is our opinion that the
knowledge to be gained from this program appears very limited in its capacity to enhance
U.S. agriculture or respond to national emergencies (in either the short or long term).
Furthermore, there has been an absence of adequate discussion regarding the major practical
and regulatory impediments toward realizing the projected agricultural benefits. As a
result, the program may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for
hostile purposes and their means of delivery , which -- if true -- would constitute a
breach of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
It its response to the Science paper DARPA again insists that the program is for
purely agricultural purpose. But the response does not answer the questions the scientists
put up.
The mechanism of spreading infectious genetically modified viruses to genetically modify
and 'heal' plants in the fields is itself full of problems and dangers. To use insects for
distributing such viruses borders on insane.
If one has access to the targeted crop fields and if one has a genetically modified virus
to influence the plants why would one use insects to distribute it? Why not use the well
known targeted process of spraying the affected fields, just like it is widely done today?
Only when one does not have access to the fields, when these are situated in a foreign
country the U.S. has no access to, does it make sense to use insects for such purposes.
The idea that the real (and illegal) purpose of such U.S. research is biological warfare
is not far fetched at all.
During the Korea War the U.S.
dropped infected insects and rodents over north Korea and China to
infect people with deadly diseases. Various pathogens, including anthrax, were used
against the civilian population. During the Vietnam war the U.S. sprayed thousand of square
miles with poisonous defoliants. It tested biological weapons on
the people of Hawaii, Alaska, Maryland, Florida, Canada and Britain. In 2002 weaponized
anthrax spores from the U.S. biological warfare laboratory in Fort Derrick were used
to scare U.S. politicians into agreeing to the Patriot Act. At least five people were
killed. And why is the U.S. Air Force
looking for synovial tissue and RNA samples collected specifically from Caucasian people
in Russia?
Biological warfare programs are extremely dangerous. Not only to 'the enemy' but to ones
own population. Infectious diseases and pathogens can spread around the globe within a few
days. Genetic modifications can have unpredictable secondary effects. Viruses can jump over
the species barrier. These are the sound reasons why such weapons, and research into using
them, are prohibited.
The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in the
self interest of protecting its very own people.
Posted by b on October 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM |
Permalink
Comments A picture speaks a thoudsand words. There are 49 bio-weapons research labs in 6
countries in close proximity to Russia.
The UK Porton Down labs are also involved in this process. They have conducted experiments
on the general public travelling on the London Underground. More recently, they have received
a nice £47 million funding boost for all their good work on the Skripal case.
"Biological warfare programs are extremely dangerous. Not only to 'the enemy' but to ones
own population."
This may explain the US BW research program interest in genetic material of RUssians. They
may hope to produce some kind of narrowly targetted (in theory) pathogen. Given the ethnic
diversity of the Russian Federation, Russian-ness is largely cultural rather than genetic.
Genetic effects would only likely to succeed in populations with a narrow genetic spread.
@ b who ended with:
"
The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in the
self interest of protecting its very own people.
"
Your assumption is that the US government has the best interests of its citizens in mind. We
know the US government is under the control of the global elite and yes, they do not have the
best interests of global humanity at heart.
Western humans are being controlled by a parasite class that has historically operated in
this manner. It is only with the advent of the intertubes that information is shared widely
enough for these patterns of control to become clear. The mindset behind this control seems
to be monotheism with the center held by private finance. Monotheism was perverted enough in
in 1054 to insure that nowhere in Europe is the Crab Nebula supernova that was visible for 23
days and nights in the sky documented. This is a perverted mindset that denies reality so
thoroughly, eh?
The spawn of the monotheistic elite continue to act as though they really are better than
the rest of humanity and deserve to rule over everyone. They are having their position
challenged and seem to have no moral center other than to themselves.
My only positive point to this situation is that it clearly brings out the entitled from
under their rocks to push their bias. IF Western society cannot stand up and say that we
don't want to live like this, then I suspect our extinction is closer than many think
B: ... To use insects for distributing such viruses borders on insane .
If one has access to the targeted crop fields and if one has a genetically modified
virus to influence the plants why would one use insects to distribute it? Why not use the
well known targeted process of spraying the affected fields, just like it is widely done
today? Only when one does not have access to the fields, when these are situated in a foreign
country the U.S. has no access to, does it make sense to use insects for such
purposes.
It does NOT border on insanity, B, there is nothing remotely borderline about it. It is
insane, full stop. (Borderline insanity means it is on the border, could be on either
side).
Why not spray the fields? The compellingly obvious - and necessarily intended - feature of
the insects is their ability to spread out of control.
Maybe this is one of the clues to the complex and so multifaceted Skripal saga - the British
know the Russians had leads and would bring out this news, and were desperately trying to
destroy their credibility in advance.
"The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in
the self interest of protecting its very own people."
Your assumption is that the US government has the best interests of its citizens in
mind. We know the US government is under the control of the global elite and yes, they do not
have the best interests of global humanity at heart.
Further than that - the elite expressly desire to reduce the global population -
including the US population - to a tiny fraction of what it is at present.
As for the "law", well we see what is happening these days: Russiagate-FBI-DoJ
criminality, US using terrorism as foreign policy, rapidly multiplying false flags, using
sanctions to ban legtimate trade of competitors, Bolton's threats to ICC, threats to blockade
Russia, ficticious sovereignty claims such as right to inspect Russian/Chinese ports and
right to build bases in Syria ...
"LAW" is rapidly evaporating away - very soon it will not exist at all, in the
West.
That appears to be a specific intention, and ties in with the mindless skripal fantasy/Syria
chemical weapons fantasy/virtual reality/"we create our own reality" bullshit.
[B: My appologies for the string of short posts, it was not intentional as such!]
The latest rash of hacking accusations against Russia appears timed to distract the public
from this highly disturbing information.
One way or another, the old white men who are the self appointed ruling elite week appear
determined to turn the planet into a monstrous, king sized Jonestown.
Psycho,
Which gets to the logical flaw in monotheism. A spiritual absolute would be the essence of
sentience from which life rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement from which humanity
fell. More the new born babe, than the wise old man. It is just that for social control, it
makes more sense to idolize wisdom over passion.
The deeper issue is that Western culture is ideals based, rather balance based, like Eastern
culture. The basis of civilization is story telling and the most memorable and repeated
stories are those with a focus, moral lesson and compelling narrative. So it becomes assumed
there must be some goal, destination, or ideal state to which we strive, even if it's just
the bottom line. Rather than to be in balance with nature and the community, absorbing and
radiating the energy of the present.
Which also goes to the nature of time. As we have this narrative thought process, being
mobile organisms, processing our motion, we think of time as a vector from past to future,
but the reality is change turning future to past. Potential>actual>residual. There is
only this state of dynamic energy and thermodynamics is a more elemental aspect of it than
time. Expansion/consolidation.
Thank you 'b' this subject is guaranteed to give us all nightmares on its own, but added in
to the rest of the bigger equation ! We run out of strong enough words to do it justice !
It's to much for one to bare. We need to share this burden or we will go under.
This kind of depravity has always been there in mankind -- - napalm,agent orange, white
phosphorus the human imagination is vast ! But now they have the power, technology, resources
opatunity and motivation, that is new !
We here at present can spread this story as much as we possibly can ! Far and wide.
"... Accountability is for the little people, immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human history ..."
"... September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine. ..."
"... The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the Iraq debacle. ..."
"... Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by floating the idea of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White House candidate. ..."
Accountability is for the little people,
immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human
history
'If there are no legal consequences for profiteers who defrauded the
global economy into a collapse, what will deter those profiteers from doing that again?' Illustration: Mark Long/Mark Long for Guardian
US W hen the former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was
released from prison
a few weeks ago, the news conjured memories of a corporate scandal that now seems almost quaint – and it was also a reminder
that Enron executives were among the last politically connected criminals to face any serious consequences for institutionalized
fraud.
Since Skilling's conviction 12 years ago,
our society has been fundamentally altered by a powerful political movement whose goal is not merely another court seat, tax cut
or election victory. This movement's objective is far more revolutionary: the creation of an accountability-free zone for an ennobled
aristocracy, even as the rest of the population is treated to law-and-order rhetoric and painfully punitive policy.
Let's remember that in less than two decades, America has experienced the Iraq war, the financial crisis, intensifying economic
stratification, an opioid plague, persistent gender and racial inequality and now seemingly unending climate change-intensified disasters.
While the victims have been ravaged by these crime sprees, crises and calamities, the perpetrators have largely avoided arrest, inquisition,
incarceration, resignation, public shaming and ruined careers.
That is because the United States has been turned into a safe space for a permanent ruling class. Inside the rarefied refuge,
the key players who created this era's catastrophes and who embody the most pernicious pathologies have not just eschewed punishment
– many of them have actually maintained or even increased their social, financial and political status.
The effort to construct this elite haven has tied together so many seemingly disparate news events, suggesting that there is a
method in the madness. Consider this past month that culminated with the dramatic battle over the judicial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which
served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine.
The event was attended by Iraq war proponents of both parties, from
Dick Cheney to
Lindsey
Graham to Hillary Clinton. The funeral featured a saccharine eulogy from the key Democratic proponent of the invasion, Joe Lieberman,
as well the resurrection of George W Bush. The
codpiece-flaunting
war president who piloted America into the cataclysm with
"bring 'em on" bravado,
"shock and awe" bloodlust and
"uranium from
Africa" dishonesty was suddenly portrayed as an icon of warmth and civility when he
passed a lozenge to Michelle Obama. The scene was depicted not as the gathering of a rogues gallery fit for a war crimes tribunal,
but as a
venerable
bipartisan reunion evoking
nostalgia for the supposed halcyon days – and Bush promptly used his newly revived image to
campaign
for Republican congressional candidates and
lobby
for Kavanaugh's appointment .
The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the
Iraq debacle.
Next up came the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis – a meltdown that laid waste to the global economy, while providing
lucrative taxpayer-funded bailouts to Wall Street firms.
To mark the occasion, the three men on whose watch it occurred – Fed chair Ben Bernanke, Bush treasury secretary Hank Paulson
and Obama treasury secretary Tim Geithner – did not offer an apology, but instead promised that another financial crisis will eventually
occur, and they
demanded lawmakers give public officials
more power to bail out big banks in the future.
In a similar bipartisan show of unity, former Trump economic adviser
Gary Cohn gave an interview in which he asked "Who broke the law?" – the implication being that no Wall Street executives were
prosecuted for their role in the meltdown because no statutes had been violated. That suggestion, of course, is undermined by
banks
'
own
admissions that they defrauded investors (that includes
admissions of fraud
from Goldman Sachs – the very bank that Cohn himself ran during the crisis). Nonetheless,
Obama's attorney
general, Eric Holder – who has now rejoined
his old corporate defense law firm – subsequently backed Cohn up by arguing that nobody on Wall Street committed an offense that
could have been successfully prosecuted in a court of law.
Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by
floating the idea
of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic
lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White
House candidate.
Again, the message came through: nobody who engineered the financial crisis will pay any real price for wreaking so much havoc.
Then as
Hurricane Florence provided the latest illustration of climate change's devastation, ExxonMobil
marched into the supreme court to demand an end to a state investigation of its role denying and suppressing climate science.
Backed by 11 Republican attorneys general
, the fossil fuel giant had reason to feel emboldened in its appeal for immunity: despite
investigative reporting detailing the company's prior knowledge of fossil fuel's role in climate change, its executives had already
convinced
the Securities and Exchange Commission to shut down a similar investigation.
Once again, the message was unavoidable: in the new accountability-free zone, companies shouldn't be bothered to even explain
– much less face punishment for – their role in a crisis that threatens the survival of the human species.
... ... ...
The answer is nothing – which is exactly the point for the aristocracy. But that cannot be considered acceptable for the rest
of us outside the accountability-free zone.
David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an investigative journalist at Capital & Main. His latest book is Back to Our Future:
How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was
ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
Ryan Chilcote: Since you brought up the subject of sanctions, as you know after the
Skripal poisoning, Russia is facing even more of them, perhaps as soon as November. What is
Russia prepared to do to change the trajectory of relations with the United States and the
West?
Vladimir Putin : We are not the ones introducing these sanctions against the United
States or the West. We are just responding to their actions, and we do this in very restrained,
careful steps so as not to cause harm, primarily to ourselves. And we will continue to do
so.
As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy scandal is being artificially
inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is
almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is
such a term, a 'traitor to the motherland,' and that's what he is.
Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly somebody comes along who betrays your
country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country, feel about
such a person? He is scum, that's all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed
around it.
I think it will come to an end, I hope it will, and the sooner the better. We have
repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done and
conduct an investigation.
We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance in criminal cases that outlines the
procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General's Office as required. We will
see what actually happened there.
The fuss between security services did not start yesterday. As you know, espionage, just
like prostitution, is one of the most 'important' jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut it
down and nobody can shut it down yet.
Ryan Chilcote : Espionage aside, I think there are two other issues. One is the use
of chemical weapons, and let's not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being affected
in that attack, there was also a homeless person who was killed when they came in contact with
the nerve agent Novichok.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, since we are talking about
poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I
look at what is happening around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and
started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What is this all about? Are they working for
cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison This Skripal is a traitor, as I said. He was caught
and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That's it. He left. He
continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking
about right now? Oil, gas or espionage? What is your question?
Let's move on to the other oldest profession and discuss the latest developments in that
business. (Laughter.)
Funny how lowkey this topic is handled. It appeard in The Times. As the Times article is
behind a paywall. I am linking to the Irish Times:
MI5 can authorise agents to commit crimes, tribunal told . Maybe the UK should be
sanctioned.
Makes my fantasy go a little wild and wonder if there might be any connection to
Skripal.
I flicked on the beeb news channel as I dragged meself outta the pit this am and caught
the 'news' of the bellingcat claim that Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga.
Now I'm fully cognisant of the fact that neither Russia nor Chepiga should feel obliged to
prove this claim is untrue, but since whichever way you slice it Chepiga is now 'blown', They
(Russia/Chepiga) may as well prove the claim is nonsense. The thing being that the boof heads
at MI6/CIA would also have worked that out, unless it was a particularly boofed, boofhead who
put this latest snippet together.
IMO in all likelihood Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga is correct. Towards the
end of one of the supporting articles that sets out the 'proof' Bellingcat mutters something
rather odd which seems like it actually detracts from the story - if the ultimate target of
this revelation is Colonel Chepiga.
But who really cares about some obscure military intelligence mid-level bloke? (Colonel is
nowhere near the giddy heights of any military, something I discovered when working in the Oz
public service & I was seconded to the department of defence to do a job. Since I was
working with a bunch of uniformed saluters, it was claimed they would not "feel comfortable
working with someone of unknown status in the hierarchy". So I was told that my position in
the Public Service equated with the rank of colonel in the army. I can tell you, if it
weren't totally apparent, that I was just an average sh1tkicker)
No one cares about Chepiga, this entire saga is about getting the masses to accept without
any deep consideration, that "Putin" the figurehead who (according to western media)
micromanages everything evil about russia, only cares about destroying the life of Jo/Joe
Sh1tkicker where ever in the world Jo/Joe may be.
So the
last two paras of the burble runs thusly:
Bellingcat has contacted confidentially a former Russian military officer of similar rank
as Colonel Chepiga, in order to receive a reaction to what we found. The source, speaking
on condition of anonymity, expressed surprise that at least one of the operatives engaged
in the operation in Salisbury had the rank of colonel. Even more surprising was the
suspects' prior award of the highest military recognition.
In our source's words, an operation of this sort would have typically required a
lower-ranked, "field operative" with a military rank of "no higher than captain." The
source further surmised that to send a highly decorated colonel back to a field job would
be highly extraordinary, and would imply that "the job was ordered at the highest
level."
The logical flaw is obvious of course. If 'the job' had been ordered at the highest level
surely sending some bloke who had been riding a desk for the last six years is not how it
would handled, the most recently capable operative would be sent - either a relatively junior
officer or a young but experienced NCO.
However assuming Boshirov = Colonel Chepiga is correct, while he would never be sent to
supervise a hit on the ground much less carry it out; it doesn't take a great stretch to
ruminate on the possible tasks a military intelligence colonel would be sent to england
for.
There is one obvious task which would explain most credibly what he was in Salisbury for - to
give Sergey Skripal confidence that his repatriation was a genuine offer, not some half arsed
wish fulfillment plan dreamed up by Yulia and a low level intelligence operator eager to
climb into Yulia's pants.
Two colonels of the GRU, one a highly decorated hero and the other a dodgy turncoat who had
come to realise after the nonsense his immediate MI6 superior Pablo Miller, plus his big boss
"Mr Steele" had put out about Moscow golden showers, whilst insinuating he, Skirpal was party
to the fiction, that rapprochment between Russia and angland/amerika was never gonna happen.
He was never going to be able to know any of his grandchildren or see his motherland again
because usuk needed 'evil Russia' to distract their citizens away from the real evildoing 'at
home'.
Someone used a chess mataphor elsewhere in a thread, well I would say that if the Bellingcat
revelation that Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga. if true sails close to a
checkmate.
If Russia confesses that Ruslan Boshirov does = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga, citizens in the
west would be denied any explanation as the fishwraps and talking heads would be too busy
celebrating Russia's alleged 'defeat' to include any other portion of what Russia had said,
especially not an exposition which dealt with everything from the fact that Chepiga & co
arrived too late on Sunday for their poisoned doorknob to have tainted the Skirpals who had
left the house for the last time hours before and that of all the english towns some idjit
chose to squirt this muck around Salisbury was the one where assassination by chemical weapon
was the town the least likely to give success since the proximity of Porton Downs guaranteed
that some not all staff at Salisbury Hospital would have been trained in chem weapon
detection and antidote.
On the other side of the coin - panic stations at MI6, on a quiet Sunday it has just been
uncovered that an asset was 'going over'. So some duty officer sent the thug on call for the
day over to Porton Downs to grab 'a little something' guaranteed to prevent any such
nonsense.
That's amazing example of contlling the nattarive and suppressing alternative sources. Should
go in all textbooks on the subject
Notable quotes:
"... Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported in the New York Times on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see here and here ). ..."
"... Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking very professional and compelling. ..."
"... For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too. ..."
"... Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole. ..."
"... The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice, Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because he wouldn't retract. ..."
"... It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather, he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'. ..."
"... The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned companies. ..."
"... According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus, ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember, or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators. ..."
Before getting down to brass tacks, let me say that I loathe penning articles like this; loathe writing about myself or in the
first person, because a reporter should report the news, not be the news. Yet I grudgingly make this exception because, ironically,
it happens to be newsworthy. To cut to the chase, it concerns Anglo-American financier Bill Browder and the Sergei Magnitsky affair.
I, like others in the news business I'd venture to guess, feel led astray by Browder.
This is no excuse. I didn't do my due diligence, and take full responsibility for erroneous information printed under my name.
For that, I apologize to readers. I refer to two articles of mine published in a Cypriot publication, dated December 25, 2015 and
January 6, 2016.
Browder's basic story, as he has told it time and again, goes like this: in June 2007, Russian police officers raided the Moscow
offices of Browder's firm Hermitage, confiscating company seals, certificates of incorporation, and computers.
Browder says the owners and directors of Hermitage-owned companies were subsequently changed, using these seized documents. Corrupt
courts were used to create fake debts for these companies, which allowed for the taxes they had previously paid to the Russian Treasury
to be refunded to what were now re-registered companies. The funds stolen from the Russian state were then laundered through banks
and shell companies.
The scheme is said to have been planned earlier in Cyprus by Russian law enforcement and tax officials in cahoots with criminal
elements.
All this was supposedly discovered by Magnitsky, whom Browder had tasked with investigating what happened. When Magnitsky reported
the fraud, some of the nefarious characters involved had him arrested and jailed. He refused to retract, and died while in pre-trial
detention.
In my first article, I wrote: "Magnitsky, a 37-year-old Russian accountant, died in jail in 2009 after he exposed huge tax embezzlement
"
False . Contrary to the above story that has been rehashed countless times, Magnitsky did not expose any tax fraud, did not blow
the whistle.
The interrogation
reports show that Magnitsky had in fact been summoned by Russian authorities as a witness to an already ongoing investigation
into Hermitage. Nor he did he accuse Russian investigators Karpov and/or Kuznetsov of committing the $230 million treasury fraud,
as Browder claims.
Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported
in the New York Times
on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies
and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before
Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see
here
and here
).
Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached
out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking
very professional and compelling.
At the time of the first article, I knew next to nothing about the Magnitsky/Browder affair. I had to go through media reports
to get the gist, and then get up to speed with Browder's latest claims that a Cypriot law firm, which counted the Hermitage Fund
among its clients, had just been 'raided' by Cypriot police. The article had to be written and delivered on the same day. In retrospect
I should have asked for more time – a lot more time – and Devil take the deadlines.
For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel
on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information
which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too.
In the ensuing weeks and months, I didn't follow up on the story as my gut told me something was wrong: villains and malign actors
operating in a Wild West Russia, and at the centre of it all, a heroic Magnitsky who paid with his life – the kind of script that
Hollywood execs would kill for.
Subsequently I mentally filed away the Browder story, while being aware it was in the news.
But the real red pill was a documentary by Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, which came to my attention a few weeks ago.
Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's
story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as
Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole.
The director had set out to make a poignant film about Magnitsky's tragedy, but became increasingly troubled as the facts he uncovered
didn't stack up with Browder's account, he claims.
The 'aha' moment arrives when Nekrasov appears to show solid proof that Magnitsky blew no whistle.
Not only that, but in his
depositions
– the first one dating to 2006, well before Hermitage's offices were raided – Magnitsky did not accuse any police officers of being
part of the 'theft' of Browder's companies and the subsequent alleged $230m tax rebate fraud.
The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice,
Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because
he wouldn't retract.
We are meant to take Browder's word for it.
It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather,
he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky
as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'.
The clincher comes late in the film, with footage from Browder's April 15, 2015 deposition in a US federal court, in the Prevezon
case. The case, brought by the US Justice Department at Browder's instigation, targeted a Russian national who Browder said had received
$1.9m of the $230m tax fraud.
In the deposition, Browder is asked if Magnitsky had a law degree in Russia. "I'm not aware that he did," he replies.
The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on
Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched
it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide
on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He
cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned
companies.
This is despite the fact that the now-famous Powerpoint presentations – hosted on so many 'anti-corruption' websites and recited
by 'human rights' NGOs – were prepared by Browder's own team.
Nor does he recall where, or how, he and his team obtained information on the amounts of the 'stolen' funds funnelled into companies.
When it's pointed out that in any case this information would be privileged – banking secrecy and so forth – Browder appears to be
at a loss.
According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus,
ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember,
or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators.
He can't explain how they acquired the flight records and dates, doesn't have any documentation at hand, and isn't aware if any
such documentation exists.
Browder claims his 'Justice for Magnitsky' campaign, which among other things has led to US sanctions on Russian persons, is all
about vindicating the young man. Were that true, one would have expected Browder to go out of his way to aid Magnitsky in his hour
of need.
The deposition does not bear that out.
Lawyer: "Did anyone coordinate on your behalf with Firestone Duncan about the defence of Mr Magnitsky?"
Browder: "I don't know. I don't remember."
Going back to Nekrasov's film, a standout segment is where the filmmaker looks at a briefing document prepared by Team Browder
concerning the June 2007 raid by Russian police officers. In it, Browder claims the cops beat up Victor Poryugin, a lawyer with the
firm.
The lawyer was then "hospitalized for two weeks," according to Browder's presentation, which includes a photo of the beaten-up
lawyer. Except, it turns out the man pictured is not Poryugin at all. Rather, the photo is actually of Jim Zwerg, an American human
rights activist beaten up during a street protest in 1961 (see
here and here ).
Nekrasov sits down with German politician Marieluise Beck. She was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(Pace), which compiled a report that made Magnitsky a cause celebre.
You can see Beck's jaw drop when Nekrasov informs her that Magnitsky did not report the fraud, that he was in fact under investigation.
It transpires that Pace, as well as human rights activists, were getting their information from one source – Browder. Later, the
Council of Europe's Andreas Gross admits on camera that their entire investigation into the Magnitsky affair was based on Browder's
info and that they relied on translations of Russian documents provided by Browder's team because, as Gross puts it, "I don't speak
Russian myself."
That hit home – I, too, had been fed information from a single source, not bothering to verify it. I, too, initially went with
the assumption that because Russia is said to be a land of endemic corruption, then Browder's story sounded plausible if not entirely
credible.
For me, the takeaway is this gem from Nekrasov's narration:
"I was regularly overcome by deep unease. Was I defending a system that killed Magnitsky, even if I'd found no proof that he'd
been murdered?"
Bull's-eye. Nekrasov has arrived at a crossroads, the moment where one's mettle is tested: do I pursue the facts wherever they
may lead, even if they take me out of my comfort zone? What is more important: the truth, or the narrative? Nekrasov chose the former.
As do I.
Like with everything else, specific allegations must be assessed independently of one's general opinion of the Russian state.
They are two distinct issues. Say Browder never existed; does that make Russia a paradise?
I suspect Team Browder may scrub me from their mailing list; one can live with that.
oncemore1 , 6 minutes ago
Soros and Browder are the same tribe. FULLSTOP.
Slipstream , 6 minutes ago
Wow. That's a big **** up. But at least this guy is a journalist with ethics. He got it
wrong and has said so, to set the record straight. This should be a case taught in every
journalism school in the world. Unfortunately, I don't see the Magnitsky Act being repealed
any time soon.
Usura , 8 minutes ago
Bill Browder is a lying ***
Thordoom , 12 minutes ago
Andrei Nekrasov now has webpage dedicated to The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes.
I watched the documentary too. The depositions of Browder were devastating to any notion
of him as truth-teller. And yet, he managed to dupe politicians and media around the
world.
Thordoom , 33 minutes ago
The only good thing Yeltsin did in his miserable life was to say " **** you " to Bill
Clinton in the end when he found out how they wanted to set him up with that 7 billion of IMF
money they stolen in order to put Boris Berezovsky in the charge of Russia as a president for
hire and stole anything that was not welded down. Yeltsin knowing that the only way for
Russia to survive was to put Vladimir Putin in charge to clense the unclean filth that
infested Russia in the 90s
resistedliving , 52 minutes ago
classic agitprop.
Don't trust Browder and his self-interests much but trust this guy less.
Browser knows he'll never see that money again and has spent his own funds on his one man
mission
Thordoom , 40 minutes ago
Stupid moron he is spending Knohorkovsky's money and HSBC bank money. Half of the UK and
US government officials and intl officials and Harward boys are deeply involved in this
looting of Russian people in the 90s.
RationalLuddite , 31 minutes ago
Classic Reverse blockade lie by you Restedliving. Good luck moving the middle on Browder .
He's just not that bright in lying so I suppose your Talmudic exegesis honed Accusatory
Inversion is worth a try.
Please keep it up. Seriously. "Agitprop"😄😄😄😄
You are like a Browder red-pill dispenser with every incoherent mendacious utterance.
Thank you mate :*
WTFUD , 29 minutes ago
Bruiser Browser Browder, ex light-heavyweight champion of La-La Potemkin Village,
Ninnyapolis, USA.
Shouldn't Fakebook be banning the US Government for a plethora of Fake News? Then again
it's a nice fit for these 2 entities, a cosy relationship.
The Paucity of Hope , 54 minutes ago
Nekrasov's movie has been disappeared, but was excellent. Also, look at The Forecaster,
about Martin Armstrong. It talks about Hermatage Capital and was blocked in the US and
Switzerland for several years.
Ahmeexnal , 57 minutes ago
Browder must hang!
chunga , 38 minutes ago
Not a single person in the US gov will even acknowledge this. None. Not one.
At the same time the US domestic affairs revolve around unsubstantiated stories of SC
nominee penis wagging, special prosecutors investigating **** actress affairs/bribery with
POTUS, FBI, DOJ off the rails, while at the same time asserting a moral authority to sanction
and/or attack other countries as though it's an obligation or entitlement.
Now that UK's "resettling" White Helmet Terrorists within its borders, I wonder if they'll
become the next victims of MI6 attempts to frame Russia for its assassinations using poison
gas?
Semi OT--Now that UK's
"resettling" White Helmet Terrorists within its borders, I wonder if they'll become the
next victims of MI6 attempts to frame Russia for its assassinations using poison gas? What do
UK-located MoA barflies think of May bringing her terrorists "home"? Plus, I thought there
was a housing crisis of sorts within UK, and such scarce housing's to be allocated to
terrorists?! What sort of light opera would Gilbert & Sullivan compose as a ripost?
Unfortunately, it appears Corbyn's remained quiet on this issue, although there's plenty of
other items of importance to UK citizens for him to use as issues to defeat Tories.
"... Steele also had extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, who - along with Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with). ..."
"... Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails. ..."
"... Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller ..."
"... In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season. ..."
"... In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the "witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a set-up from the start . ..."
"... Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true. ..."
"... Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts with the press. ..."
"... That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious. ..."
"... I find it interesting that the Theresa May Govt in UK has the temerity to interfere with US politics (until they got caught out!), yet can't find the spine to stand up to the EU. ..."
"... THE UNITED KINGDOM along with ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA have always been the ones behind US Politics making, pulling the strings behind the curtains since the Petrodollar Inception, The Greater Israel project & the NWO initiative - only this time around Trump was not the UK's pick... ..."
"... England dominates the offshore money laundering havens where the super rich hide their money and evade taxes. They need to be brought down. No more African dictators looting their nation's resources and hiding the money first in offshore banks and then in JP Morgan and Brit banks. ..."
"... It is a test. If Trump doesn't go ahead with declassification, we know for sure he is no better than the globalists and neocons whose goal has always been to destroy and depopulate America. ..."
"... 'focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious' ..."
"... Not at all. It's obvious - the problem ISN'T Steele. They're living in fear, as are many in DC and elsewhere, that Trump is going to pry the lid open and reveal at least some of their activities. If killing him would fix the problem, they would. It's too late, considering what Trump is threatening to do. I wonder if he'll back down, at least some? ..."
"... U.K. does not want the jurisdiction. U.S. spies lure you overseas then...compromise you. ..."
"... Duh. This Started In London! Britain is the "foreign country" involved in our elections. Wake up everyone. It's LONDONGATE ..."
"... May gonna owe Vlad an apology when Skripal is revealed to be Steele's source. Steele himself hadn't been to Russian in 15 years. Will he get life in prison for attempted murder? ..."
"... "t's hard to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't in this whole Russia narrative. Fact is, NOBODY is telling the truth. That is what I've determined after doing my own research.": https://youtu.be/2AA5BIfGj3g ..."
"... Trump made promises before being elected, then lied and sold America out, just like every other corrupted assklown politician. he is no different than clinton bush obama, just as arrogant, just as corrupt, and just as much a traitor. ..."
UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited "Grave Concerns" Over Steele
Involvement
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/23/2018 - 11:15 4.6K SHARES
The British government "expressed grave concerns" to the US government over the
declassification and release of material related to the Trump-Russia investigation, according
to the New
York Times . President Trump ordered a wide swath of materials "immediately" declassified
"without redaction" on Monday, only to
change his mind later in the week by allowing the DOJ Inspector General to review the
materials first.
The Times reports that the UK's concern was over material which "includes direct references
to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele," the former
MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection, according to former
US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an official document,
"regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."
We would note, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo
- the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.
Steele also had
extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, who - along with Steele
- was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for
the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more
about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for
lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.
Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump
campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos
was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would
drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to
meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page
and Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George
Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on
energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a
meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of
Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a
government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over
$400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season.
In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the
"witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted
on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they
meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a
set-up from the start .
Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims
asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump
dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the
relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts
with the press.
He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning
in early July 2016.
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four
FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was
the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse
focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK
soil, is curious.
StychoKiller , 54 minutes ago
I find it interesting that the Theresa May Govt in UK has the temerity to interfere with
US politics (until they got caught out!), yet can't find the spine to stand up to the EU. If
I were Trump, not only would the shoe be dropping re: UK Govt involvement in US politics, but
said shoe would be making an imprint across her face! (stoopid twat!)
texantim , 1 hour ago
I say release the docs and put sanctions on UK.
BitchesBetterRecognize , 1 hour ago
So the Motherland ******* up with the ex-colony yet again, huh?
THE UNITED KINGDOM along with ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA have always been the ones behind
US Politics making, pulling the strings behind the curtains since the Petrodollar Inception,
The Greater Israel project & the NWO initiative - only this time around Trump was not the
UK's pick...
Oh, but those "civilized" Allies backstabbing each other for more power grip on the
USA....
Baron von Bud , 2 hours ago
England dominates the offshore money laundering havens where the super rich hide their
money and evade taxes. They need to be brought down. No more African dictators looting their
nation's resources and hiding the money first in offshore banks and then in JP Morgan and
Brit banks.
Many hedge funds are deep into this game. I'd wager on Carlyle Group and the Bush
clan. Billions of people can't get ahead because the super rich are ******* crooks running
the banks and governments. They don't pay taxes but force a small dry cleaner to pay 45% in
fed/state taxes. These criminals include Hillary Clinton and many members of congress.
Feinstein, Pelosi, Maxine and many more of both parties need to be investigated. How do they
get so rich on a congressman's salary. Deep into tax evasion and payoffs? Release the
documents and let MI6 hang.
Malvern Joe , 3 hours ago
It is a test. If Trump doesn't go ahead with declassification, we know for sure he is no
better than the globalists and neocons whose goal has always been to destroy and depopulate
America. It would represent the biggest sellout of this country since the creation of the Fed
in 1913, He will go down as the biggest fraud ever and his base will deport his *** to the
sums of India where he can defecate in public.
Bricker , 3 hours ago
You dont get to supply a rogue agent, that was probably told to do it in the first place,
and then tell Trump not to do it out of harm, harm is all you BRIT DEEP STATES deserve
Moving and Grooving , 3 hours ago
'focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on
UK soil, is curious'
Not at all. It's obvious - the problem ISN'T Steele. They're living in fear, as are many
in DC and elsewhere, that Trump is going to pry the lid open and reveal at least some of
their activities. If killing him would fix the problem, they would. It's too late,
considering what Trump is threatening to do. I wonder if he'll back down, at least some?
The sheer corruption of the Global Government is on display here, revealing itself, if you
watch for it. Whether planned or not, the last 6 months or so have been astonishing to watch.
The entire media has been shown to be liars, academia is shown to be an expensive provider of
unprepared students, the corporate world is furiously rent-seeking and finding new ways to
destroy humanity, and government is too busy selling Americans out to write a budget. In all
countries around the world, adjusting for national status. Lawsuits in the west, machetes in
the third world.
Ban KKiller , 4 hours ago
U.K. does not want the jurisdiction. U.S. spies lure you overseas then...compromise you.
John C Durham , 4 hours ago
Duh. This Started In London! Britain is the "foreign country" involved in our elections.
Wake up everyone. It's LONDONGATE .
Anunnaki , 4 hours ago
May gonna owe Vlad an apology when Skripal is revealed to be Steele's source. Steele himself hadn't been to Russian in 15 years. Will he get life in prison for attempted murder?
PeaceForWorld , 4 hours ago
"t's hard to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't in this whole Russia narrative.
Fact is, NOBODY is telling the truth. That is what I've determined after doing my own
research.": https://youtu.be/2AA5BIfGj3g
I really like this woman "Shut the **** up!". She is a former Bernie supporter just like
me. She has turned against Democrats just like me. She doesn't trust any of the Establishment
parties.
Buddha71 , 4 hours ago
Trump made promises before being elected, then lied and sold America out, just like every other
corrupted assklown politician. he is no different than clinton bush obama, just as arrogant,
just as corrupt, and just as much a traitor. he has broken the promises upon which he was
elected, just like all the other fkn liars before him. no different. just a pos. he has not
made america great again, just more of the same, unemployment is a lie, it is closer to
17%.
"... There was no sign of nerve agents being used, but The Sun claimed to have 'security sources' which told them rat poison may have been used against the couple, while claiming King was fighting for his life. Soon after the hospital confirmed that actually both had been discharged. ..."
"... Then the BBC reported that King, who was reportedly found foaming at the mouth in the restaurant's toilet, is a "convicted criminal who once hoaxed Prince Charles" and had previously been convicted of "distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children." ..."
"... Then the Daily Mirror reported that King is an alleged drug dealer, and Shapiro is a high-class escort who told friends she was a " honeytrap spy ..."
"... Like any newspaper, we were keen to talk to those at the centre of the incident and give them the opportunity to share with the public their version of events ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Russian-born Anna Shapiro and her British husband Alex King were at the center of another
poisoning scare in Salisbury last Sunday in an incident that appeared at first to echo the
attack on ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the very same city.
The details were compelling, a reported poisoning in another Italian eatery chain in
Salisbury (this time Prezzo), a Russian was involved, and the police closed off streets and
deployed specialists in hazmat suits.
The story also carried a hint of too-good-to-be-true, but The Sun was so seduced by
Shapiro's claim that Putin was after her, it ran a front page splash. The fact she was willing
to claim " Putin wants me dead " while at the same time doing a sexy photo shoot
probably helped.
There was no sign of nerve agents being used, but The Sun claimed to have 'security
sources' which told them rat poison may have been used against the couple, while claiming King
was fighting for his life. Soon after the hospital confirmed that actually both had been
discharged.
However, other details began to emerge after the Sun splashed. The police, who have not
suggested any crime actually took place, admitted one of their lines of inquiry into what
happened in Salisbury's Prezzo is now whether it may have been a hoax.
Then the BBC
reported that King, who was reportedly found foaming at the mouth in the restaurant's
toilet, is a "convicted criminal who once hoaxed Prince Charles" and had previously been
convicted of "distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children."
Then the
Daily Mirror reported that King is an alleged drug dealer, and Shapiro is a high-class
escort who told friends she was a " honeytrap spy " used by Israel's Mossad to seduce
men.
Essentially what appeared to be an extremely questionable story from the very start seems to
be disintegrating, so why would a national newspaper decide to run this story at all without
doing a basic background checks?
The obvious conclusion is simply that it's too easy to make any accusation you like about
Russia because readers are willing to believe anything in the current political climate.
The Sun said in a statement: " Like any newspaper, we were keen to talk to those at the
centre of the incident and give them the opportunity to share with the public their version of
events ."
But were they keen to check whether any of it was accurate?
@Mr. Hack I understand perfectly what I read, and even make a direct quotation:
Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the civil
war, directly and through a NATO intervention
I then ridicule such mularkey for what it is, unsubstantiated ' gibberish
'.
You want to defend this BS then go to it, otherwise put up or shut up! :-)
The same goes for Skeptikal. Here is a British 'method' of slandering the non-obedient
Russians. In terms of dishonesty, it is about the same as the US/EU/Ukrainian version of the
MH17 tragedy:
"The Holes in the Official Skripal Story," by Craig MURRAY:
"The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the
corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made,
even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that
finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents,
the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia
and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing
facility in Uzbekistan in 2002."
"... The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is "highly likely" that the Kremlin ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a "Russian-made" chemical weapon called "Novichok." In turn, from what we already knew, it is highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. ..."
The Brits have just provided my previous article, The Truthers and The Fakers, with a tidy
little case study: the very next day after I published it Theresa May's government stepped into
its role as one of the world's premier Fakers and unleashed the next installment of fake news
on the Skripal poisoning. We can use this as training material in learning how to spot and
discard fakes.
The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is "highly likely" that the Kremlin
ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a
"Russian-made" chemical weapon called "Novichok." In turn, from what we already knew, it is
highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. As I explained in the previous
article, it is not our job to establish what really happened. We would be unable to do so with
any degree of certainty without gaining access to state secrets. But we don't need to; all we
need to do is establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the British government's
story is a foolishly, incompetently concocted fabrication. Doing so will then allow us to
properly classify the British press, which repeats this nonsense as fact, and the British
public, which accepts it unquestioningly at face value. Then we can drop the erroneous
appellation "great" -- because great nations don't act so stupidly
So much of mainstream journalism has descended to the level of a cult-like formula of bias,
hearsay and omission. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters
is 'perception'...
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter.
Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared
much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry
exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016,
they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used
chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry
set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a
stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved
evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has
changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the
1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of
corporate dictatorship.
This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it,
dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the
"MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and
anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world
war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a
corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis:
true journalism sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com,
globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for
those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while
political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of
narcissistic spectacle.
Propaganda Blitz
In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the
remarkable Media Lens -- remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only
writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the
usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, The
Guardian , Channel 4 News.
Cromwell and Edwards (The Ghandi Foundation)
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when
they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose
essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if
they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky
and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and
demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is
a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality
of journalism -- a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity -- is a bracing quality of
their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book,
Propaganda Blitz , in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all
do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell
describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering
health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with
its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public
expenditure) and "hard choices" (the willful destruction of the premises of civilized life in
modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked
banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service
have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being
deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off. The Labour Party of
Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any
of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous
title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal
obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which
the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate
themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way
through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to
properly inform the public of "matters of public policy," the BBC never spelt out the threat
posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which
gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
Media and Iraq Invasion
Blair: Lawless (Office of Tony Blair)
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's
lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study
by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line
"overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the
BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the
invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a
consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted
by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers.
The Guardian' s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most
disturbing. Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and
largesse to The Guardian , was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to
a vituperative – and cowardly -- onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood
movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as
a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also disclosed the secret password he had given the
paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy
cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police
outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh."
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of
flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange,
she had suffered "vile abuse." Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry
to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile
abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody
patronizing." Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what
Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved
in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine
Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive." What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it
jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his
snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who
have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not
only trollism, or the likes of Fox News, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a
false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in
reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony
Blair, whom The Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine
Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who
supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism."
"How did this man .," brayed the Guardian 's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first
place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on
their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the
media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit,
Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent
journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists
in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Leni Riefenstahl (r.) (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)
Supported by a "psyops" campaign
funded by the British Foreign Office and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow of the government in Damascus,
regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency called Purpose, funds a group known as
the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defense" and are seen uncritically on
TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit
themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their
media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their
exploits are not questioned by major news organizations is an indication of how deep the
influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no
"mainstream" reporter reports Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon,
who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of
journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a
network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the
Russian government."
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply.
The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of
questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet -- "Have you ever
been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and
outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception."
When he was U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a
war of perception conducted continuously using the news media." What really mattered was not
the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as
always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose
propaganda mesmerized the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on
the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
Propaganda Blitz by David
Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto Press.
I gave up on the Guardian's comment site myself, 10 years ago, as the censorship on there
made it pointless. Has something changed?
There was one prolific commenter there, MrPikeBishop, who was so popular, he was even
commissioned to write articles above the line. Then one day, bam, he is banned, and his entire
posting history gone. That did it for me; little emperors not fit to clean his boots, just
rubbed him out. I spat on the site that day and never went back. Proclaiming themselves the
bastion of free speech, when they actually the enemies of it.
Actually, I was caught out here in the UK, by the demise of the old five pound note, and
then the ten pound note, because I stopped reading and watching MSM years ago. It's worth it,
to get their irritating buzzing out of my head.
Back to the linked Guardian article; this is indeed interesting – these questions
asked by the journalist:
– Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel
attack?
– Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate?
– Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country
operates in Syria?
– How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?
The questions raised: Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France
and/or Israel attack? If France are attacking Russia/Syria what prompted this? What do they
have to gain? Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they
have IFFs? Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate? Will
Russia retaliate against Israel? They have claimed that right already. What will they expect to
extract as a quid pro quo on this issue? How will the media report this? Will they call
it a "near miss"? That's surely what it was. Do they even understand how close we're coming to
global war, whenever a NATO country operates in Syria? How long can we rely on Russian common
sense to avoid WWIII?
I notice you don't advocate that Russia should have immediately retaliated militarily. All
the things you do advocate (well, most) – quite rationally – would not have shown
any results as yet, so we don't know they haven't been done, do we?
But, to repeat, you don't defeat a man who is trying to lure you into a fight by punching
him in the face. Intelligence is underrated by the non-intelligent. Subtlety is unappreciated
by the crass. The Russian govt's actions tend to be both subtle and intelligent –
whether you approve of them or not, and so can go unappreciated by many on all sides of the
debate.
As to ascendancy – Syria was intended to be a new Libya by now. That this has
been avoided, that the various terrorists are in retreat, that the country remains largely
functional, and all without direct confrontation between east and west (so far), is an
achievement anyone with any intelligence should recognise, and which the Russia government
has every right to be proud of.
Forgive me, but people have been saying variants of "if Putin doesn't DO SOMETHING HUGE
right now he's going to burn" for at least the last four years, and they are still saying it,
despite the fact he hasn't burned (and neither have we), and, if their sage advice had been
followed, we might all be cinders on a dead and cindered planet right now.
The only reason it hasn't come to that yet is that the ground was not prepared fully before.
Russia is slowly being pushed back to the ropes, the average Western citizen is being
conditioned to racially hate Russians (did you read Nikki Haley's comment today that Russians
are culturally conditioned to lie and cheat?) and the consent is being steadily manufactured.
As I said in my original comment, by showing "restraint" and not that he has teeth, Putin is
encouraging his country's enemies. Personally, I don't give a damn about what he does
about people he doesn't like, but he's not a private citizen; he is in control of Russia, for
good or ill. Most of my Russian friends, all of the far left variety, despise him,
incidentally, but that's neither here nor there. The simple fact is that if Russia is to
avoid a big war it has to actively deter one, not act like someone attempting to disarm an
armed drunk by logical words and sweet reason. That is not going to work.
If the Russians got a cruise missile down the funnel of the French frigate Auvegne (assuming
there is a funnel) what do you think NATO would do? Would they shrug and say it serves Macron
right or would they take off the safety locks and blast Russia from every direction in order
to protect their partner who had been so 'wrongly' attacked? Haven't they been waiting for
the chance for years? Aren't they already loaded up expecting the 'chemical weapons' shout to
go up this very week? It would be vey foolish of Russia to take the bait of these
provocations and it makes for uneasy reading when Westerners, sitting comfortably in safety,
complain that Russians aren't prepared to die for us in large enough numbers to keep them
safe. You first guy!
When provoked so blatantly you need to look to see what the guy is hiding behind his back. In
this case the West had built up their forces for a full scale attack on Syria as soon as the
White Helmets released their video of choking children filmed a week or so ago. Putin
disappointed them by coming to an agreement with Turkey that means the jihadis are further
isolated and pushed into possible conflict with radicals.
The time scales of the agreement are vague/unknown but it's unlikely we will see a Jihadi
Caliphate set up under Turkish protection.
Like the Syrians it's the crazy foreign fighters that alarm the Turks, the Chinese
especially of whom there are 6000 heavily armed in the South. Turkey is keen to see the
extremists pushed South making it difficult for them to enter Turkey. Putin's reaction is far
more sensible than firing the gun for a major conflict which Russia is most unlikely to
win.
Russia is still on track to squeeze the jihadis into smaller and smaller areas where they
might be eliminated. It might make liberals happy to see Russia sacrifice herself a la 1941
but it's not going to help anybody except their enemies.
You can't help thinking Putin knows exactly what he's doing.
There can never be a non-nuclear war between the US and Russia. Every strategist worth
anything knows this. It's the belief – created by the PNAC neocons – that this
isn't true that drives the hardcore nuts in Washington and London and elsewhere.
This is the problem. They are delusional and believe they can fight a limited war with
Russia. Those who know they are wrong, and that any such war would go nuclear very very fast
are stuck in a profound dilemma. – How to defend oneself and one's interests while
avoiding the conflict the lunatics want, which will destroy life on earth?
Answers on a post card please for anyone who thinks they can do better than the current
Russian govt is doing.
It's a complex web.. one has to bear this in mind.. the inter-relationships.. the
connections.. Putin for example has to tread the razor edge and fight with one hand tied
behind his back due to the Zionist influence atop the Russian hierarchy .
S-200 uses the SAHR guidance system. The radar signal is fairly wide, and if multiple objects
fall within the signal, the one with the largest cross-section will be targeted. The Russian
IL is much larger than the American F-16. Larger missiles like the 200's 5V21 also tend to
hit from above (they come down in a parabolic arc after the motors burned out). So if the
F-16's stayed a little behind and below the IL they'd basically guarantee the IL get's
killed.
As "Partisangirl" claims, but does not properly understand, Russia integrated Syrian AD
into their network some time ago. The purpose of such a integration was to avoid similar
accidents.
One problem: That was only for the newer stuff.
A Pantsir, for example, can be told where targets are and what to shoot at by a larger
system (they work in a pyramid hierarchy). S-200s are older than h*ll though. It's basically
a dumb system from the 60's. (even dumber than a BUK)
What it'll do is spot a target, fire the missile and then when the missile "thinks" it's in
the right area (the kill box), it's seeker head goes active (it's a semi active seeker). It
starts looking for radar 'reflections' and then homes in on the biggest one it can see. It
doesn't actually know what it's looking at and doesn't care. Just goes for the shiniest thing
it can detect.
My favourite part is how all these lies are held up as if they merit discussion and as if
they deserve to be given equal treatment with what actually happened. It's like holding a
"discussion" as to whether or not Aliens rule the Earth.
I tend to agree with you, on the whole, Mulga, about issues to do with Israel, though perhaps
not so stridently. But on this occasion I think Matt is honestly telling things how he sees
it.
On the other hand, one should ask why Israel is arbitrarily attacking targets in a
sovereign country that is not threatening it. Of course, the answer is that this is what
Israel does with impunity – witness USS Liberty among many others. On this occasion, it
appears, from what I have read, that Israel was targeting the delivery of Iranian S300 copies
to Syria – that is weapons to defend from this kind of attack in future. In reality,
far from attacking Israel, Syria has even done nothing about recovering territory lost to
Israel in 1967, though in international law Israel – that Israel signed up to –
it should be given back to Syria. A few days ago, Israel attacked Damascus airport during an
international fair with many visitors and potential for massive loss of life. It seems clear
that Israel is trying (probably with US approval) to provoke a response.
Putin always keeps his eye on the long term view but it is time for him to put a stop to
this activity if he is to maintain credibility with his allies and his voters. This attack
will serve to weaken Putin's hitherto Israel friendly stance unless he wants to lose support
in Russia. Putin is the best friend Israel has in Russia. It seems that Russian military is
saying that there will be a response – much stronger than Putin.
On the other hand – re my previous comment, Matt, IAF was clearly using the Russian
ELINT plane as cover. It is tantamount to using civilians as human shields. Though the crew
were Russian military, they were not involved in the action, apparently, and Israel had
agreed not to target Russian assets in Syria. One cannot absolve Israel on this and the
Russian military know it. They will be looking to Putin to permit a response.
Then you surely would not object if Russia were to ask Israel to hand over the pilots
involved so they can explain in a Russian military court or a similar setting their actions
and the thinking and expectations that motivated them to hide their jets in the Ilyushin
transport plane's radar shadow.
Yes, there is a large element of theatre at play in this conflict. What many people don't
want to accept is that they have no way of knowing what the entire truth is. All the
information about situations and events comes from partisan organizations with vested
interests. Expecting the side one personally favours to present objective truths is wishful
thinking at best, downright delusional at worst.
The post-truth era means everybody walks around believing they have 'figured out' the
truth, no hard evidence required, but they can't all be right can they?
Not so long ago Netanyahu was pleading with Putin [successfully] not to supply the S300 anti
aircraft system [defensive] to Syria, at the same time Israel was the first country to get a
fleet of F35's [offensive] from the US. Putin defers far to much to the US/Israel, we now see
the results. Incidentally how come Saudi Arabia can buy the S400 system, when they were one
of the instigators of Syrian regime change. Russia's "partners" want Syria destroyed, the
warmonger McCain always said the US should take on Syria and that Russia would 'do nothing',
was he right?
Let's recall the realities here and not succumb to hysteria. One of the reasons these
provocations are happening is that Russia is winning in Syria, militarily and politically.
Loading...
Harry has touched on an important point: that Russia and Israel are becoming closer and
closer strategic Russophone partners. Russia was the first country in the world to recognise
W Jerusalem as Israel's capital (before even Trump). There was only one foreign dignitary at
the May 9th Victory Parade their growing economic, military and cultural ties (Customs Union
negotiations and visa free travel for instance) cannot be ignored.
The IDF's 200 strikes in 18 months must lead to serious consideration of tacit Russian
approval because they could be quite quickly stopped without it? But that would escalate the
situation. Where does Iran stand in this, because VVP made quite clear to Netanyahu that Iran
was Russia's principle strategic partner in the region. Is that set to change?
Netanyahu has met VVP what, three times this year, behind closed doors. What was said, and
what agreements were made? It is also reputed that they have a direct one-to-one encrypted
comms network (though I can't confirm it was activated). But that they are in regular contact
is undoubted.
There is a lot more going on beneath the surface than first meets the eye. VVP's relations
with Netanyahu blurs the boundaries and greys the narrative. The fact that VVP is saying it
"looks accidental" doesn't ring true it looks anything other than accidental to me. Was there
a communication breakdown as VVP is in Hungary?
I do not know, and based on what we have been told, neither does anyone else. The FS
Auvergne fired missiles just as the Il-20 HQ went off screen. They weren't firing at the IDF,
I wouldn't be too sure they were "window dressing" for them either. Whatever went on, we are
being kept in the dark. Not precipitating WW3 is a good thing. Other than that, Russia's
foreign policy and ME relations are a 3D chess game that we know little of the motivation
behind: but I can infer that Russia's strategic needs are primary. At what point can that be
labelled imperialist?
Are you expecting to be spoon fed? And by the biased BBC, Guardian, etc!
It's pretty clear that Assad has won with Putin's support. China is on side too as
evidenced by recent military manoeuvres. What is happening now is the US, UK, France, Israel,
Turkey, Saudi just saving face and been allowed the odd small success or two.
However, Israel royally fucked up last night and Netanyahu will lose a plane or three if
he tries it again.
You didn't really read my comment: this "odd small success " has happened 200 times in the
last 18 months with the downing of how many IDF planes 1? Russia providing S-300s, or S-400s,
or upgrading the 1960's SAM 2s would secure Syrian airspace. But these supplies are not
forthcoming. Because Israel will not allow them.
The situation is a lot more complex: and no, I don't want to be spoonfed by the BBC. The
Saker posits a "Zionist 5th Column" in Russia that VVP has to accommodate. You seem to want a
simplistic ZioNATO v Russia narrative, all I am saying it is a lot more nuanced than that.
And I didn't get that from the Graun!
200 IDF strikes in 18 months, that could be stopped by turning on their S-400s, would be an
instance.. Israel has lobbied successfully to prevent Syria from securing its own airspace.
The majority of these attacks are to prevent Assad acquiring what Haaretz terms "lethal
weaponry" a euphemism for Iranian supplied air defences that could secure Syrian airspace. As
could a Russian declared NFZ (though the IDF would just standoff over Lebanon or the Med, and
not penetrate Syrian airspace). Or Russian supplied S-300s.
So my answer is yes and no. The Russophone alliance of Russia and Israel seems to be
ascendant over Syrian sovereignty. Or it was, until Monday. There appears to have been a
breakdown in the de-confliction agreement, or a deliberate misuse and provocation by Israel.
The jury is out on that one for the moment. If the attacks are stopped, I would tend to agree
with you.
There is the small matter of the international silence surrounding the FS Auvergne firing
missiles concurrent with the downing of the Il-20 HQ. These either hit the Il-20 or Latakia.
Has anyone considered the Il-20 WAS the target? That there was no accident, but a deliberate
targeting? Did the IDF or French take out the Russian early warning system and electronic
warfare capability to leave Latakia vulnerable? I don't know, and Rothschild Macron said no!
It is worth considering though, I feel.
Integrated into the systems view of militaristic, imperialistic, and sub-imperialistic,
and extractivist proliferation: it hardly matters who did what when. They are not giving us
an insight into their collective insanity and power games, where the stakes are humanities
very survivability. Russia only seemed to remember on Monday that the serial numbers on the
MH-17 BUK, means it was made in 1986. What else have they forgotten? What else do they not
know?
Humanity has no strategic allies within the global neoliberal ruling class. Arming the
world is a "pro-conflict policy", wouldn't you agree? Where militaristic proliferation can't
facilitate peace: the only possible de-confliction becomes system change? There are good and
bad actors within the current globally hegemonic cultural system: VVP is possibly the best,
so it would be unfair to heap the woes of an essentially evil system upon him especially in
isolation. So it must fall to those outside the transnational globally integrated system to
call out where this insanity will lead. That's you and me?
What I am suggesting is rather than the inevitably favourable comparison of VVP, and well,
just about anyone else let's look at the bigger picture. International World Capitalism, as
Guattari termed it, has faced us with the choice of three suicides. Without a radical
transformation of the oppressed consciousness (a la Guattari, Deleuze, Freire, Bookchin,
Naess, but better still the secular Buddha) there will soon enough come the day that does not
dawn Monday night was a foreshadowing of that very day?
The idea a head of state can function as a moral paragon is naive of course. Putin pursues
Russia's interests, not world peace and brotherhood. But at the same time we can't ignore the
fact he does so while adhering to the requirements of international law far more than the
west does. In that sense, he has some claim to respect from those who value ethical conduct.
Whatever his motives may be this fact deserves to be stated and made clear.
"Israel is unlikely to freely use Syrian airspace in the wake of the crash of a Russian
Il-20 military aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Yakov Kedmi, a former high-ranking
Israeli intelligence official, told Sputnik.
"There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's
airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What
happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be
able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi
said.
"Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step,
because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by
Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the
Russian troops," Kedmi said."
The US must be the worst nation on the face of the Earth. Everywhere it goes, death and
destruction follow. To top it all off, the blatant hypocrisy is too much to handle. America
is treacherous and duplicitous in the extreme. It has supported terrorists of all stripes in
the Middle East and elsewhere for its own selfish geopolitical reasons. It is an entity not
to be trusted, ever!
Regarding (the long tradition of ) British-French-Israeli collusion
"Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the
air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had
switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns – most likely to avoid
being somehow involved in the exchange of fire over Latakia." (source: Haaretz)
we should remember Sykes-Picot and "Operation Revised" (the 1956 Suez-deception)
"The documentary evidence does not leave any room for doubt that at Sèvres, during
the three days in late October 1956, an elaborate war plot was hatched against Egypt by the
representatives of France, Britain and Israel. The Protocol of Sèvres is the most
conclusive piece of evidence for it lays out in precise detail and with a precise time-table
how the joint war against Egypt was intended to proceed and shows foreknowledge of each
other's intentions .
The central aim of the plot was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser. This aim is not
explicitly stated in the protocol but it emerges clearly and unambiguously from all the
records of the discussions surrounding it. Yet each of the three partners had a very
different perspective on this war plot, and it was not at all clear how even the agreed aim
was to be achieved.
The French were the most straight-forward, unwavering and unabashed advocates of military
force. As far as they were concerned, Colonel Nasser supported the Algerian rebels and that,
along with his nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, was enough to justify a war to
overthrow him. For their part, the French did not need any further pretext for taking
military action. It was the British, unwilling to incur Arab hostility by appearing as ally
of Israel, who needed a pretext and Israel was able and willing to provide it but only at a
price. Israel also required the elimination of Nasser's air force, for which task Britain
alone had the heavy bomber bases sufficiently near at hand."
I was also struck by the Haaretz report that "Something strange was definitely in the air
over Syria on Monday night with British and French forces reportedly present." I hope this
open thread may bring more information on this alleged NATO involvement. I am beginning to
think this incident may have rather more actors than we've been told. Loading...
Yes – agreed. FUKUS ships have moved closer to the Syrian coast in the last few days,
presumably in anticipation of an attack (chemical or otherwise) that they could justify a
response to. The Russians have been doing a great job in the (non-Western) media of
predicting potential chemical fake attacks and thereby defusing them. The one minute warning
from Israel suggests the possibility (no more than that) that the Israelis saw the ELINT
plane approaching the airfield and quickly decided to use it as cover for whatever reason.
As I've said in other posts, the Israelis have narrowed Putin's options. Of FUKUS +I they
are the easiest to pick off.
A very different and is some ways attractive theory is presented here:
I am not totally convinced – Matt's view on the capability of the Syrian SAMs seems
more convincing and it is not clear that Russian fighters could have scrambled in time,
especially as the Israelis had agreed not to target Russian assets, but if true it perhaps is
a clever – nay Machiavellian – way of opening up options for Putin vis-a-vis his
Israeli/Russian Jewish oligarchs and hanging the Israelis out to dry.
Is there any information about whether the Auvergne did or didn't fire missiles? The Syrians
(and Russians?) said they had witnessed the firing of missiles which seemed to be aimed at
the same government buildings as that being attacked by Israel which suggests collusion.
Loading...
The US and NATO's compliant poodles are clearly willing to risk WWIII as they think Russia
will simply back down when they instigate open warfare and regime change in Syria. My own
belief is that poor honest broker Russia has been left to decide the fate of world peace.
Personally, for all our futures, I believe Russia must declare a no fly zone over Syria
– anyone entering to bomb will be at mercy of S400. Otherwise this will continue and if
the US gets Syria it will be Iran next and WWIII – that is, armageddon.
The entire of the West has now become simply a huge collective criminal enterprise operating
completely outside the bounds of international law and threatening to bring about armageddon
in the process. Of course one would never know this by reading or watching Western media
where our clueless psychopathic leaders are portrayed as gallantly fighting for "human
rights" and "democracy" through "regime change" and endless slaughter.
BTL SyrPer Auslander on September 18, 2018 · at 7:54 am EST/EDT
Israeli plane apparently passed just in front of the plane, SAA got a lock, Israeli
doglegged left, missile lost lock and chose the biggest target ..our plane. Israel violated
protocol, called one minute before the attack, not enough time for our bird to get out of the
way. The french frigate was window dressing.
Here are a couple of quotes that show how far the system has been rigged/corrupted:
"one of the things we need to do is give young Jewish people the confidence to be proud of
their identity – as British, Jewish and Zionist too .. There is no contradiction
between these identities and we must never let anyone try to suggest that there should be
..
"You can also count on my commitment to Israel's security .. I am clear that we will always
support Israel's right to defend itself."
– UK Prime Minister Theresa May, at the United Jewish Israel Appeal
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them (Israel). It
just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all
the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
– U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
The significance of direct military involvement by Israel and France is that the facade of a
"civil war" (albeit by proxy) can no longer be maintained. The only thing that prevents it
from being a regular war between nations is the omission of a declaration.
Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they have
IFFs?
Yup, and kinda. It's perfectly possible to do it and IFF doesn't really work the way a lot
of people think. (IFF transponder beacon works by transmitting a signal to the ground station
or launcher).
If the ground station recognises the beacon it labels the aircraft as friendly and either
denies launch permission or warns the operator beforehand.
However with a system like the S-200 that will not actually matter. The SA-5 (S-200) is an
old system from the 60's which uses a semi active radar homing missile and how it works is
quite simple.
When the ground system detects a target it illuminates the target with it's radar like a
torch and launches the missile.
The missile then follows the radar reflection from the target until it gets close enough
to detonate, goes bang, shoots plane down.
However the beam from the radar 'torch' can be quite wide (miles wide), F-16's are quite
small, IL-20's quite big.. and the missile itself is pretty dumb.
As such by hiding in behind the larger aircraft the smaller aircraft can almost guarantee
an incoming missile will prioritise the large aircraft reflection and kill that instead. It
doesn't actually matter if the missile was launched against the smaller target in the first
instance or if IFF came into play. The missile itself is too dumb to care. It just goes for
the largest thing it can see.
Thanks for clearing that up: but it raises the question that the Il-20 was on a pre-planned
flight path known in advance to both Russian and Syrian air traffic control (whom I believe
are sitting next to each other?) Knowing what you have just posted (which I do not doubt) it
can hardly be termed "accidental"?
I suspect the FS Auvergne fired its Aster missiles, but I'm not expecting a clarification
of that. The situation is greyed by the burgeoning Russian-Israeli Russophone alliance. A
simple narrative will not be forthcoming, I suspect.
The IL-20's been on station flying figure 8's on constant rotation for months so it's flight
and landing path would be known to everyone with half assed radar or even functional
eyeballs.
Putin can't afford to get it wrong – for everybody's sake. His power is limited. He has
done an excellent job in defeating the West in Syria but how could he react to missiles from
the French frigate without triggering a massive NATO attack not just on Syria but Russia? In
the current climate and the West's readiness it could happen in hours. He has always
emphasised he puts Russian interests first – and those included eliminating thousands
of Russian Jihadis before they returned home to create mayhem. He has never said he'll take
on the World. So the French missiles were a mirage and the plane an accident? Well that's
better than an even bigger war maybe?
If the French and Israeli's attacked at the same time then they must have liased with each
other. Or conspired is another way of putting it. Shades of 1956? But nowadays there wouldn't
be the slightest outrage at such a collusion; it's oar for the course. And where is the
missing partner, the UK? "No longer up to it" the French would say. "Too busy" say the Brits.
NB which bit of Syria are the French after this time? Or do they see it descending into the
chaos of a Libya, their last successful destabilisation.
Note Russian and IDF planes in direct line from s-200 being fired ..with French frigate
..looks like deliberate coordination to provide cover for each .but if frigate attacked then
IDF planes available to directly attack Bashir in Damascus .and frigate to provide a source
of provocation for excuse for Nato forces to launch their massive attack they desparately
wish to do .especially as Putin agreed no military attack in Idlib ..and Russian MoD
presentation yesterday it was a Ukraine BUK .in fact it is tempting to say Nato did this to
get back at Russian MoD and punish them for this and expose in any way Russia's belief in
trust and agreements and hotlines as a laughing stock ..and they have succeeded .a Russian
plane shot down by an outdated Russian missile launched by Syria and Russia failing to supply
s-300 but Turkey and everyone else can have s-400 which might ? have not ended up like
this.
And did not Russia promise to deal with the "launch source" of any more missiles against
Syria since the previous lot? Surely their are Russians in Latakia
The elephant in the room is Iran .no responses from them yet even though Israel uses excuses
to say it is defending itself from them and continues to attack what tjey call Iranian assets
or anything they might vaguely claim have any connections to Iran ..does Iran follow Putins
example to keep calm and carry on .thinking their"partnership" is being put to the test as of
course it is in order to provoke it to invite a response by usa and associates .does it say
to Putin enough is enough we are going to do our thing as you have said Russia is only in
Syria to protect its own interests so cannot we do the same ..what options covert or overt
does Iran have one wonders ..
One question you didn't ask is whether this act, which appears to be an Israeli provocation
assisted by the French, is related to the Sochi talks/agreement? Seems that supporters of the
Syrian Opposition, of which France is right behind Turkey, might not like the agreement,
partly because it stalls the plans for a "Syrian gas attack" by removing the pretext.
However I think the wider question is why and how has France been involved in this, described
on SBS as "Israeli and French forces conducting aerial attacks on Syrian State assets"?
Israel is a law unto itself, but France's intervention without any pretext whatsoever is a
blatant war crime and escalation. The whole thing looks like a provocation, and one wonders
when Russia will break. If Putin was unhappy having to make a peace agreement with the psycho
Erdogan, he will be more unhappy now.
If Russia was 'obliged' to retaliate to Israeli or French attacks its inherent weaknesses
would be exposed. It remains a relatively poor country and Putin must be well aware it can't
take on the US, Israel, the KSA and the other Gulf Emirs as well as France and the UK. It's
done a fantastic job saving Syria but it can't take on The Rest of the World. If it has
accepted Syrian missile defences brought it down that may well be the way out of a bigger war
– this time.
I agree, Paul X. These are not only perilous waters, but untested to boot. In fact not one of
the military powers you cite has had its strength tested against a non third world adversary.
I know there are infantile tendencies crying "bring it on!" – as though speaking of a
long awaited prize fight involving their heavyweight boxer of choice – but saner voices
can only express alarm and profound dismay at what Western rulers seem bent on dragging us
into. I say enough of this macho nonsense about who would prevail. I do take some comfort in
the possibility –
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/-
that US military power is overstated, but it is comfort of the bleakest possible kind.
Loading...
The point is this, Russia can take on the whole World if it had to, but it would be a pyrrhic
victory, because to do so would require nuclear weapons which no nation could survive.
However, Russia has many allies, the largest of which is China, so it probably would only be
taking on one major opponent, the US and a few of its erstwhile allies (France, Britain
etc.), not by any stretch of the imagination, the whole World!
China is even weaker than Russia and not long ago said it was 10 years behind the US in
military terms and it's hard to see they'd welcome a bit of sacrifice to pull Putin's
chestnuts out of the fire. That Alliance is for the future. Right now a full blooded NATO
response would be quite enough. Many in America would be delighted if Russia used a nuke;
total annihaltion of Russia would follow, something they've been dying to do for 75 years.
And of course they might go for the First Strike.
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster:
"Lies and obfuscation!"
Interesting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
Yulia Skripal
brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery. T
he Skripals were
poisoned with an UAV drone.
The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis
(aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.
The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door
handle.
The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
The Skripals were
poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).
The killer/s poured
"Novichok" in a public toilet.
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
The Skripals
were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most
deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when
the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [
Главное
разведывательное
управление -- Glavnoye
razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main
Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or
″GU″ [Главное
управление
Генерального
штаба
Вооружённых
Сил Российской
Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye
General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in
the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different,
often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his
sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by
stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened,
which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government
allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out
of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press
and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes
that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on
many of Karl Marx's precepts.
Exactly! For Simonjan this unexpected interview was the scoop of the century.
The Russian press is going wild with this story.
One blogger wrote that some of the utterances of the 2 gopniki are rapidly becoming "winged
phrases" compared only to snippets from Griboedov's "Woe from Wit".
Best example: "We returned to Salisbury to complete this business."
Simonjan (suspiciously): "What business?"
Gopnik: "To see the cathedral
"... The Gvmt. *slowly* latched onto the meme 'the Russians did it' thru pol. opportunism (Syria etc.) and/or as a cover up for some ugly and dismaying stuff. At every step of the way, they tardily re-calibrated, 'fixed' the narrative to jell with that script. A good ex. is DS Bailey: he was at first affected as a first responder to the Bench Scene, but much later, that was denied, and he was poisoned because he stole comatose Sergei's keys and went to his home where he "most likely" touched a Novichoked doornob. (Note the doornob tale leaves the door open (sic) to some mundane passers-by doing nefarious deeds.) ..."
"... After examining endless planeloads of Russian travellers to the UK, and thousands of hours of CCTV, they turned up these two (and kept their jobs and kiddies safe! Yay! ) ..."
"... The only link between the pair and the Skripal 'event' is the stated fact that 'minuscule traces of Novichok' were found in the Hotel in London they stayed in. This is complete BS, see for ex. even the Daily Mail! ..."
Petrov - Boshirov. To me they were utterly convincing. Mostly because they were absolutely
terrified and utterly naive about doing a TV interview and answering questions.
RT, the interviewer and setting - an office - and the number of cameras were their
conditions, I have read, and I believe it. They wanted to appear in public, rather than hide
(no doubt following some excellent advice, and Putin's public assurance, saying he hoped they
would come forward..) but had little idea beyond that except that they wanted to avoid being
Center in a media circus - storm. (They need a PR expert and top-class lawyer.)
Why their gayness / not or what business they run legally or not-so-much and lots of other
topics are invoked and puzzled over is because ppl simply cannot believe what happened here.
(Imho!)
(Some weird event, possibly fabricated, organised by X, or strange happenstance, or
whatever) .. sent Sergei and Yulia 'queer -- ill', as well as DS Bailey, and later, Dawn and
Charlie (All connected to some 'event' that remains cloudy.)
The Gvmt. *slowly* latched onto the meme 'the Russians did it' thru pol. opportunism
(Syria etc.) and/or as a cover up for some ugly and dismaying stuff. At every step of the
way, they tardily re-calibrated, 'fixed' the narrative to jell with that script. A good ex.
is DS Bailey: he was at first affected as a first responder to the Bench Scene, but much
later, that was denied, and he was poisoned because he stole comatose Sergei's keys and went
to his home where he "most likely" touched a Novichoked doornob. (Note the doornob tale
leaves the door open (sic) to some mundane passers-by doing nefarious deeds.)
The investigators behind the computers acted under orders and under the imposed
assumption
"Some Russian undercover(s) flew in on or around March 1,2,3, and poisoned a door in
Salisbury, find a match."
After examining endless planeloads of Russian travellers to the UK, and thousands of hours
of CCTV, they turned up these two (and kept their jobs and kiddies safe! Yay! )
The only link between the pair and the Skripal 'event' is the stated fact that 'minuscule
traces of Novichok' were found in the Hotel in London they stayed in. This is complete BS,
see for ex. even the Daily Mail!
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
-- The Empire Strikes Back
Since Vladimir Putin brought up Bill Browder's name in Helsinki, events have escalated to a
fever pitch. Russia is under extreme attack the U.S./European financial and political
establishment.
Danske's report on these allegations are due on Wednesday.
No matter what they say, however, the die has been cast.
Danske is being targeted for termination by the U.S. and possible takeover by the European
Central Bank.
There's precedent for this but let me lay out some background first.
The Oldest
Trick
Browder's complaint says the money laundered is in connection with the reason why he was
thrown out of Russia and the $230 million in stolen tax money which Browder's cause
célèbre , the death of accountant Sergei Magnitsky, hangs on.
That crusade got the Magnitsky Act passed not only in the U.S. but all across the West, with
versions on the books in Canada, Australia the EU and other places.
Danske's shares have been gutted in the wake of the accusation.
The U.S. is now investigating this complaint and that shouldn't come as much of a shock.
The Treasury Department can issue whatever findings it wants, and then respond by starving
Danske of dollars, known as the "Death Blow" option the threat of which was plastered
all over the pages of the Wall St. Journal on Friday.
Note this article isn't behind the Journal's pay-wall. They want everyone to see this.
Browder filed complaints both in Demmark and in Estonia, and the Estonian government was
only too happy to oblige him.
The Devil Played
To see the whole picture I have to go back a littler further.
Back in March, Latvian bank, ABLV, was targeted in a similar manner, accused of laundering
money. Within a week the ECB moved in to take control of the bank even though it wasn't in
danger of failing.
It was an odd move, where the ECB exercised an extreme response utilizing its broader powers
given to it after the 2008 financial crisis, like it did with Spain's Banco Popular in
2017.
Why? The U.S. was looking for ways to cut off Russia from the European banking system. And
the ECB did its dirty work.
I wrote about this
back in May in relation to the Treasury demanding all U.S. investors divest themselves of
Russian debt within thirty days.
It threw the ruble and Russian debt markets into turmoil since Russian companies bought a lot
of euro-denominated debt after the Ruble Crisis of 2014, having been shut off from dollars.
ABLV was a conduit for many Russian entities to keep access to Europe's banks, having been
grandfathered in as clients when the Baltics entered the Euro-zone.
So, now a replay of ABLV's seizure is playing out through Browder's money laundering
complaint against Danske.
Was Convincing Everyone
The goal of this lawsuit is two-fold.
The first is to undermine the faith in the Danish banking system. Dutch giant ING is also
facing huge AML fines.
This is a direct attack on the EU banking system to being it under even more stringent
government control.
The second goal, however, is far more important. As I said, the U.S. is desperate to cut
money flow between the European Union and Russia, not just to stop the construction of
Nordstream 2, but to keep Russia's markets weak having to scramble for euros to make coupon
payments and create a roll-over nightmare.
Turkey is facing this now, Russia went through it in 2014/15.
So, attacking a major bank like Danske for consorting with dirty Russians and using Mr.
Human Rights Champion Browder to file the complaint is pure power politics to keep the EU
itself from seeking rapprochement with Russia.
Anti-Money Laundering laws are tyrannical and vaguely worded. And with the Magnitsky Act and
its follow-up, CAATSA, in place, they help support defining money laundering to include
anything the U.S. and the EU deem as supporting 'human rights violations.'
Seeing the trap yet?
Now all of it can be linked through simple accusation regardless of the facts. The bank gets
gutted, investors and depositors get nervous, the ECB then steps in and there goes another
tendril between Russia and Europe doing business.
And that ties into Browder's minions in the European Parliament, all in the pay of Open
Society Foundation, issued a threat of invoking Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to Cyprus over
assisting Russia investigate Browder's financial dealings there.
Why? Violations of Mr. Browder's human rights because, well, Russia!
What's becoming more obvious to me as the days pass is that Browder is an obvious asset of
the U.S. financial and political oligarchy, if not U.S. Intelligence. They use his humanitarian
bona fides to visit untold misery on millions of people simply to:
1) cover up their malfeasance in Russia
2) wage hybrid war on anyone willing to stand up to their machinations.
He Didn't Exist
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990's, fresh 'off the boat' as it were, convince
someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at
less than pennies on the dollar?
It simply doesn't pass a basic sniff test.
Danske is the biggest bank in Denmark and one of the oldest in Europe. The message should be
clear.
If they can be gotten to this way, anyone can.
Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by
Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being 'friends of Vladimir'
it's obvious that the target isn't Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone
in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in
Rostov-on-Don.
Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through
the Moscow phone book.
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd's single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has
been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine
the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
The more Browder gets defended by people punching far above his weight, the more obvious it
is that there is something wrong with his story. Undermining the reputation of the biggest bank
in Denmark is a 'playing-for-keeps' moment.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time.
It undermines the validity of government institutions, exposing corruption that proves we
live in a world ruled by men, not laws. That the U.S. and EU are fundamentally no different in
their leadership than banana republics.
And that's bad for currency and debt markets as capital always flows to where it is treated
best.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time. The seizure of ABLV
and 2017's liquidation of Spain's Banco Popular were rightly described by Martin Armstrong as
defining moments where no one in their right mind would invest in a European banks if there was
the possibility of losing all of your capital due to a change in the political winds
overnight.
Using the European Parliament to censure Cyprus via Article 7 over one man's financial
privacy, which no one is guaranteed in this world today thanks to these same AML and KYC laws,
reeks of cronyism and corruption of the highest degree.
If you want to know what a catalyst for the collapse of the European banking system looks
like, it may well be what happens this week if Danske tries to fight the spider's web laid down
by Bill Browder and his friends in high places.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 170 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going quickly mad.
hanekhw , 1 minute ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
hanekhw , 16 minutes ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
zeroboris , 24 minutes ago
They use his humanitarian bona fides
Browder's bona fides? LOL
monad , 8 minutes ago
Minion (((Browder))) snitches on his masters. Nowhere to hide.
Vanilla_ISIS , 18 minutes ago
Someone should just kill this dude. Browder has certainly earned it.
roadhazard , 14 minutes ago
But what about the money laundering.
Panic Mode , 15 minutes ago
You better run. Your buddy McCain is gone and see who else will fight for you.
pndr4495 , 42 minutes ago
Somehow - Mnuchkin's desire to sell his Park Ave. apartment fits into this tale of
intrigue and bullshit.
markar , 47 minutes ago
Send this guy Browder a polonium cocktail. It's on me.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
((Browder)) ??
Clogheen , 37 minutes ago
Yes. Did you really need to ask?
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
Max Cynical , 1 hour ago
I watch the banned documentary...The Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes.
Only the slimiest rats get into the club of "Can Do No Wrong" and these types of gigs.
Thaxter , 1 hour ago
This documentary is first class, a really absorbing look into the mind of the sociopath
Browder, a pathological, absolutely shameless liar and a very stupid and weak person. To
understand the influence that this insignificant invertebrate yields, look to his father,
Earl Russell Browder, who was the leader of the Communist Party in the United States during
the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.
blindfaith , 22 minutes ago
Look no further than our own political circus to see that mighty hands pull the strings.
Like all strings, they will fray and break...eventually.
Jim in MN , 1 hour ago
Yes well the Big Question for us now is the degree to which the President is in control of
any of this.
Recall, dear ZH fighters, how we worked out a sound strategy for the Trump Administration
in the early days. Key aspects were to leave the generals and the bankers alone for a couple
of years. This would allow immigration, trade, health care and deregulation including tax
reform to form the early core wins, along with Supreme Court nominees of course.
Lo, cometh the Deep State and its frantic attempts to both save and conceal itself.
One key tentacle was to rouse the intelligence community into an active enemy of the
POTUS. This partially fouled up the 'leave the generals alone' strategy.
Another is to try to force war with the emergent Eurasian hegemony comprised of China and
Russia. This is seen all across the 'hinterland' of Russia.
The USA has no vital strategic interests in Eurasia at this juncture of history. Everyone
should be clear on that.
The USA's logical and sane policy stance is to support peace, free and fair trade, and
stable democracy, including border controls and the rule of law through LEADING BY
EXAMPLE.
So for Trump to continue to allow the financial sector Deep State traitors to operate
against a peaceful Eurasia is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Where to from here?
BandGap , 1 hour ago
Keep opening it up to scrutiny.
This article opened my eyes, I did not fully understand why Russia was all over Browder
except the stealing aspect, but bigger yet, why he was being protected by the EU/US.
No wonder Putin wants to work with the Donno. Taking Browder out and exposing this
manipulation works for both sides.
LA_Goldbug , 40 minutes ago
If Browder is a surprise to you then look at Khodorkovsky (there is more of these types
from he came from).
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?"
Exactly. He was sent by the Anglo-Zionist Tribe otherwise he would be a nobody.
JacquesdeMolay , 1 hour ago
Also, a very good book on the topic: "suppressed and banned by the CIA's supplier, Amazon,
The Grand Deception: The Browder Hoax is a highly intelligent, frank and entertaining
take-down of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the US public and the world
– The Magnitsky Act. Krainer's study of Bill Browder's book and actions is a riveting,
unflinching expose of what might end up being pivotal in revealing one of this decade's big
hoaxes."
The west going on attack mode against Cyprus to protect Browder. Cyprus is cooperating
with Putin on his financial dealings which all flowed through Cyprus. Lots of skeletons there
that implicate many more important people than Browder
"... Another example is the Danish newspaper "Information" founded during WWII, as very leftist it has today morphed, in the dark, into a center right neo- liberal rag, full of no- news and idiotic scribbles by irrelevant formerly known peoples talent-less sons and daughters. ..."
"... Wel thanks b, for telling the truth and letting me start my Sunday moderately depressed, I guess news that Washington D.C had been swallowed by a giant sink-hole, would cheer me partly up. ..."
Den Lille Abe , Sep 16, 2018 12:47:49 AM |
49 ">link
Thank you b, for yet another good article!
Your article made me reflect the situation in general. While it is good the The White
Frauds have been called out as an Empire front and as Western propaganda psy-op, I do thing
the real Enemy is the MSM. These crimes by our governments, the White Frauds, Isil, ect,ect,
would not be possible without the control of the MSM. But I am completely at a loss how to
fight them, or just diminish their influence.
The Guardian s a blatant example, and its turnaround from "reasonable reliable" to "paid
shill" was clumsily and obviously executed. Looking at the UK for real news , there is only
the blogoshere left, all opposition has been subverted. And it is not only in the UK.
Another example is the Danish newspaper "Information" founded during WWII, as very
leftist it has today morphed, in the dark, into a center right neo- liberal rag, full of no-
news and idiotic scribbles by irrelevant formerly known peoples talent-less sons and
daughters.
The situation in Sweden is even more depressing (it is!) the newspapers here are on level
with the Sun and the Daily Heil.
Wel thanks b, for telling the truth and letting me start my Sunday moderately
depressed, I guess news that Washington D.C had been swallowed by a giant sink-hole, would
cheer me partly up.
"... The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability of international and independent news in Western countries ..."
"... Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya; what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.) ..."
"... I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities as defined in the BBC charter. ..."
"... The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours" of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident. ..."
"... Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal. ..."
"... I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players. ..."
"... With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well as all his notes). ..."
"... Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc. ..."
"... Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled. ..."
"... Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia, the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said: ..."
"... No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear. ..."
"... I know about Ireland, and I agree, it was NOT a nerve agent. That said, I don't believe anyone was 'attacked', including the Skripals. ..."
"... All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about this. ..."
"... I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British universities for a long time. ..."
"... When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy. ..."
BBC is skanky state propaganda. The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability
of international and independent news in Western countries. The main thing that BBC used to have which propped up the illusion
of it being a respectable news source is that there was no competition or alternative to compare its narratives against. Since
that time is over, so is BBC's masquerading as an impartial or accurate news source.
Agree, Dave. That's what's informing the push to rubbish dissenting sites as fake news and eventually have them removed.
Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya;
what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.)
Well I was convinced of fake BBC news during 9/11 and not for the reasons of building 7 coming down too early but the fact
that the female journalist was facing a camera standing in front of a glass window and there was no reflection of her or the camera
person from the glass. Not even a faint shadow.
That's when I knew the BBC were employing vampires and have been ever since.
Green Screen technology I discovered later. All the On the spot reporters are at it apparently. Or repeating Reuters or PA.
I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to
be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities
as defined in the BBC charter. People should not only boycott the BBC but refuse to pay the license fee on the grounds that
it's a compulsory political subscription.
Dear Mark,
In a BBC article on 4 July 2018, you wrote: "I have not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do
now that the book is nearing completion."
Could you please explain that comment? I do not see why your acknowledgement of your meetings with Sergei Skripal should be
delayed until your book is nearing completion.
If you felt that it was right to reveal those meetings in July, then why was it not right to do so in March, soon after the
poisoning occurred? What difference would it have made if you had done so four months earlier?
I cannot think of any negative consequences of an earlier acknowledgement of the meetings. In fact, disclosures of any possible
conflict of interest are generally considered to be desirable in journalism, regardless of whether the conflict of interest is
real.
The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours"
of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident.
Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because
that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal.
And that can't happen because either Skripal would be asked about what happened on the day of the poisoning, or can't be guaranteed
to stick to the script, or is no longer alive. And that leads to a suspicion that whatever Skripal is supposed to have said in
his interviews with Urban has really just been made up by the British security services.
I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact
with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown
of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players.
Tongue in cheek, it'd be worth asking Urban if his decision to cover the Skripal poisoning in his new book was made before
or after the Skripals were actually poisoned.
The consensus seems to be that it was an anti-Russia book, but that doesn't conflict with what you say (there is overlap, your
view is just more specific). But, I just find it hard to believe that Urban and the conspirators would waste their time "counting
their chickens ". Not least because such a book would form a handy list of traitors (together with confessions) if Trump were
to prevail and it fell into the right hands. This is "101 – How to Organise a Revolution" (secrecy / don't put anything in writing);
surely British security services know that?
With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he
believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban
really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well
as all his notes).
Regardless, it looks like the master of the universe are losing their ability to create reality.
Last month, Mark Urban was promoting the reports that the Russian assassins had been identified from CCTV footage:
"There are now subjects of interest in the police Salisbury investigation. ( ) analytic and cyber techniques are now being
exploited against the Salisbury suspects by people with a wealth of experience in complex investigations." https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536
The BBC relies on it's interpretation of the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' but
this relies on a usually unrelated precedent and the opinions of a number of Judges which contradict this view. I'm in the process
of challenging this with ICO but don't expect anything will change until another supreme court ruling:
I can see the value in asking writers, journalists and artists to pose exactly the same questions as Eccles' original letter
but I'm not convinced about Craig's email.
A quick google shows me that a man named Mark Urban has written a book on the Skripals. Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping
the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?
It wouldn't surprise me if Urban cares far more about his writing career than his job at the BBC. I'm sure most journalists
would rather be authors. He's written a number of books on war and military intelligence. If his sources have nothing to do with
the BBC then why should he answer to an on line mob?
" Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?"
No, entirely unlikely. a chance to plug his forthcoming book and his Skripal contacts to a massive worldwide televion audience
was eschewed.
The book is now about the Skripal attack. Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened
yet. The book will just be a rehash of the "noble defector – Putin revenge" line and none of the questions I asked about the genesis
of his involvement will be answered in it.
"Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened yet." Or it was prescience ie that
it was part of the planning for the incident?
@BBC, Summer 2017, in an executive office:
"Hey Mark, why don't you go down to have a chat with this guy in Salisbury. I have a hunch that a story might be going to happen
involving him, you know, as an ex-Soviet spy. Spend time with him, get to know him, be able to write in depth about him. Say it's
for a book ."
Urban is never one-sided in his BBC reports on the Middle East. I would rather have him as Foreign Secretary than a bumbling
idiot like Hubris Johnson or a Tory racketeer Hunt, because however clunky the formula of BBC balance Urban is at least pretending
to be governed by normal rules. After Thatcher went anyone with half a brain left the Conservative party, leaving dolts like Johnson
and nasties like May and Cameron to pick up the pieces after Blair and Brown.
There's money to be made from Russian billionaires and tory shit will follow the money like flies on d**t**d.
Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to
find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc.
Tory shit Hubris Johnson finds this political research floating around the Foreign Office and decides to twist it into Russia
murders Skripal by Novichok. Unfortunately Johnson is already known to be a liar and gravy-trainer Tory and nobody believes him
at all. Mrs May , realising that Johnson, Fox, Rees-Mogg and Hunt are completely bonkers, does Chequers her own way.
Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon
wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled.
From memory the books description said that Mark had interviewed Skripal 'extensively' during 2017 and also mentioned the 'new'
spying war now happening between Britain and Russia.
Salisbury poisoning: Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance'
Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, Newsnight
4 July 2018
'My meetings with Sergei Skripal
I met Sergei on a few occasions last summer and found him to be a private character who did not, even under the circumstances
then prevailing, wish to draw attention to himself.
He agreed to see me as a writer of history books rather than as a news journalist, since I was researching one on the post-Cold
War espionage battle between Russia and the West.
Information gained in these interviews was fed into my Newsnight coverage during the early days after the poisoning. I have
not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do now that the book is nearing completion.
As a man, Sergei is proud of his achievements, both before and after joining his country's intelligence service.
He has a deadpan wit and is remarkably stoical given the reverses he's suffered in his life; from his imprisonment following
conviction in 2006 on charges of spying for Britain, to the loss of his wife Liudmila to cancer in 2012, and the untimely death
of his son Alexander (or Sasha) last summer.'
Laughable given that the whole world and virtually all heads of State were under US surveillance by the NSA – at least until
Edward Snowden made all his revelations.
I have pasted and copied your Email regarding the above with a few slight alterations, it will be interesting to see the response
I receive if any being just a concerned citizen of the U.
Is this not a matter for the Police? (Even if you're not too sure if they'd do anything about it) These would be files that
are to do with an attempted murder case. And definitely not Journalism if the story is fabricated.
It feels as if you are moving in the right direction in linking Sergei to Steele. I'm intrigued by the very early media references
to Sergei wanting to return home to see his elderly mother for perhaps the last time. He had apparently written to Putin making
his request but again according to newspapers hadn't received a reply.
I would suggest Julia was bringing the answer via her own secret services contacts, her boyfriend and his mother, apparently
Senior in the Russian Intelligence Agency. Perhaps a sentimental man Sergei was aware his mother couldn't travel so the plea to
Putin was his best bet.
Such a request must have disturbed MI6 if Sergei had anything at all to do with the Steele dossier because inevitably if he
returned to Russia he'd be debriefed by his old colleagues. But how can you rely on a mercenary double agent? If he decided he
might want to stay in Russia with his family that might well have been attractive, away from the lonely existence in a Salisbury
cul de sac with only spies for company. But the Steele dossier has great potential to turn sour on the British.
It's author was a Senior spy and Head of the Russian Desk for some years. It is – perhaps you'd agree? – inconceivable that
he didn't require permission to prepare it, especially as much of it was based on his experience as a spy in Russia. Yet it's
equally inconceivable that the Agency bosses didn't know the identity of the commissioners or the use to which it would be put
in the US election – to boost Clinton's bid. If she'd won everything would have been fine but as it is any discussion of foreign
interference in that election would have to include MI6 leading the list (they probably didn't tell any politician?) To have Sergei
supporting and highlighting that embarrassment would be problematic for US-UK relations. Of course Sergei may have had other nuggets
to expose as well as Steele.
Soon after Julia's arrival the pair fell ill. They both survived but are now locked away, presumably for life and never able
to explain their side of the story.
It was a bodged job with a poor cover story from the start and could only be carried because of D Notices and media complicity.
Is his mother still alive? Would he still like to see her before she dies? Would Russia allow it? Would MI6 allow it? I think
that's 3 yeses and a resounding No.
Following the deaths of 55 Palestinians on the Gaza 'border' and the wounding of thousands, in this video, Urban asks the questions
but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against Hamas.
Gaza deaths: Who's to blame? – BBC Newsnight
Published on 15 May 2018
Subscribe 256K
Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, a day after Israeli troops killed 58 people in the
Gaza Strip.
David Keyes is the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mark Urban asked him whether it was appropriate
for the US to open their embassy on the 70th anniversary of Israel's creation, a day that is hugely controversial for the Palestinian
people.
Mr Keyes' pronounced American accent was heard. The Occupation was not mentioned. A Palestinian voice was not heard.
This is another of his videos. On the same subject and on the opening of the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem. This time, Jonathan
Conricus spoke for the IDF.
"Urban asks the questions but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against
Hamas."
Yes indeed : Urban asked the questions and allowed the interviewee to answer. Perhaps you would have preferred him to interrupt
the interviewee continually 'a la Today programme, or to have shouted at him similarly to the way I understand some people shout
at customers inside or outside supermarkets?
This may or may not be relevant regarding Russia, chemical weapons and BBC/MSM bovine effluent:
"US Poised to Hit Syria Harder: The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement on Aug. 25 stating that the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham
militants had brought eight containers of chlorine to Idlib in order to stage a false-flag attack with the help of UK intelligence
agencies. A group of Tahrir al-Sham fighters trained to handle chemical warfare agents by the UK private military company Olive
arrived in the suburbs of the city of Jisr ash-Shugur, Idlib, 20 km. from the Turkish border."
Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia,
the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said:
"Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's
inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included
Germany, Estonia and Poland."
Perhaps not the Dossier, as such, but some material on collusion?
No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually
taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear.
Catch my last post Doodlebug, sadly MI6 diabolical elements can be traced back to Ireland in the 70's early 80's assassinations
theRealTerror (theRealElvis) understands.
Often it's been open. There was the BBC monitoring station at Caversham Park. The BBC's Foreign Broadcast Information Service
split the world into two parts with the CIA.
All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about
this.
Theresa May says a no deal Brexit "wouldn't be the end of the world".
This is not a negotiating strategy. This is not a pantomime where one giant on the stage can wink to his supporters (using
the British media) without his opponent (EU27) noticing.
The subconscious doesn't work well with negation. Whatever you do, please DON'T imagine an elephant at this time.
I would love to know what the preparations are at Trinity College, Cambridge, for food shortages. They own the port of
Felixstowe, which handles more than 40% of Britain's containerised trade. They also own a 50% stake in a portfolio of Tesco
stores. Soon food distribution will be what everyone is talking about. I am never going to stop making the point that the god
of the Tory party is Thomas Malthus.
" As a Prime Minister who believes both in free markets and in nations and businesses acting in line with well-established
rules and principles of conduct, I want to demonstrate to young Africans that their brightest future lies in a free and thriving
private sector. "
I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass
starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts
of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British
universities for a long time.
They are keen on Prince Philip, the guy who said he wanted to come back as a virus so he could kill a large part of the population.
Never trust anyone who has received a Templeton scholarship or prize or who has anything to do with these people or with the message
that free markets and the private sector are the key to "development"
When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy.
May's rhetoric is laughable .basically all her speeches read : 'the sky is green, the snow is black etc etc' -- totally detached
from reality and a spent political force, as their recent membership numbers showed, with more revenues from legacies left in
wills than from actual living members.
I agree with the Skripal relatives that Sergei is dead. He hasn't been seen or heard of and would have called his mother. Mind
boggling deception at all levels and I struggle to believe any of it.
Sergei Skripal could be in US custody, either in the US itself or in a US facility somewhere.
If he is dead, then the rehospitalisation of Charlie Rowley may be to assist with the narrative. "Once you've had a drop of
Novvy Chockk, you may recover but you can fall down ill at any time, and here's an Expert with a serious voice to confirm it."
I follow this blog closely, particularly in relation to the Skripal case, but this is my first comment. I just watched Sky
News piece on 'super recognisers' and couldn't help but wonder why, in an age of powerful facial recognition technology, the police
and security services seem to have drawn such a blank. The surveillance state in the UK is known to be one of the most advanced
in the world but when it comes to this highly important geopolitical crisis our technological infrastructure seems to be redundant
to the point where 'human eyes' are deemed to be more accurate than the most powerful supercomputers available. Psychologically,
all humans have an inherent facial recognition ability from a very young age, but the idea that some police officers have this
ability developed to such an extent that they supercede computer recognition is, i feel, laughable. To me this announcement through
the ever subservient Sky News reeks of desperation on the part of the ;official story'. Are we about to be shown suspects who,
although facial recognition technology fails to identify them, a 'super recogniser' can testify that it actually is person A or
person B and we are all supposed to accept that? Seems either a damning indictment of the judicial process, or a damning indictment
of the ŁŁŁŁŁ's of taxpayers money that is spent on places like GCHQ etc whose technology is now apparently no better than a highly
perceptive human brain. Give me a break !
People do die Trowbridge. I know you haven't, but you have the motivation of outliving your persecutors. With Muckin about
with Isis gone and covert operations isn't social work Kissinger looking as though he's on daily blood transfusions, you have
rejected Trump for some reason. But Trump has undone much of John McCain's worst mischief in one year. If McCain was an example
of a politician, we don't need politicians.
Give me an example, other than the Coopers. of a healthy couple one day that is found dying the next day like the Skripals.
And while i tried on another site to be generous about McCain. he got Navy Secretary John Lehman, Jr. to scare the Soviets
for prevailing in the Vietnam War so much about what NATO was up to in the fallout from shooting Swedish PM Olof Palme that Moscow
gave up the competition for fear that it would blow up the world, helping bring on the crappy one we have.
McCain was a continuing Cold Warrior who we don't need since we still have Trump who is just trying to do it another way.
Nice interview with Zakharova over the Skripal frame job. The good part is at around 14 minutes where the
loud yapping chihuahua, the UK, is put in its place.
It is not a global player by any measure and has nothing
useful to contribute aside from riding Uncle Scumbag's coat-tails to bomb civilians in Syria.
"... The obvious thing for the British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing to investigate properly. ..."
"... They're already spinning it away by saying publicly that the responses they are getting from Russia are 'lies and obfuscation'. ..."
"... It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they are. ..."
Moscow to London: Your move. This is an interesting development.
The obvious thing for the
British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be
interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the
official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the
surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing
to investigate properly.
It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will
quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly
faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they
do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they
are.
"... 'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada – mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian spies' to support its ally, Britain. ..."
"... But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks. ..."
Two alleged Russian spies who launched the Salisbury attack smuggled novichok into the
UK through Gatwick Airport, the security minister has confirmed.
I see! So now the disciplined and highly trained GRU assassins were spies as well.
Proper jack-of-all-trades!
Ben Wallace, who is currently Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, " told
the House of Commons there was 'clearly some form of attempt to create a legend to make sure
that they circumvented our checks'.
'No doubt at the other end of that aeroplane journey [in Russia] there was some, I
should think, the baggage checks weren't probably as good as they might be,' he added "
-- because the Russians are all blithering incompetents stands ter reason, dunnit!
" Mr Wallace said requests for Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury had
been met with 'obfuscation and lies', saying their response merely 'reinforces their
guilt'. "
Of course it does! Why don't they just confess to what everyone knows they have done?
'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada –
mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and
compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian
spies' to support its ally, Britain.
But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to
serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever
travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then
clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks.
"... And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons. ..."
And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons.
When I last had the great misfortune to be in England with my family, and, to make matters
worse, in London, my elder children begged and begged that we take a trip to Stonehenge. You
see, they were fascinated by all that they had learnt about the place in their Russian
schools.
We went on an excursion there, calling first at Windsor, then Salisbury, Stonehenge, and,
finally, Bath for afternoon tea before heading off back to London.
Witness the moronity of some of my fellow countrymen in this comment published in today's
Independent:
Well you can say a lot about our Russian friends: semi-educated, semi-civilised,
pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist, mocked and despised the
world over, but one thing we must concede is that they have a wonderful sense of
humour.
So this delightful, oh-so intelligent looking couple flew all the way to Salisbury to
have a look at the Cathedral clock, but the nasty inclement British weather (unlike tropical
Moscow, of course) forced them to return with undue haste from whence they came.
May I suggest better acting classes and a credible script in future?
Doubtless the Indie's resident Putinite Mary Dejevsky, Comrade Corbyn and the brainless
Prigozhin trolls infesting this site will try and sell it – because they are paid to,
but anyone with an IQ higher than a daisy, ie. the rest of the sentient world, will shake
their heads in disbelief at the knuckle-headed absurdity of this story.
Well, as regards the weather, moron, – for Russians, English snow is "inclement"',
as it is wet shite. They were complaining of being wet to the knees. At the same time, in
Russia it was minus 15C and there was plenty of deep, dry snow, which really would make
Little Englanders like you whine.
Oh, and the person who owns that rag to which you wrote the above shite is owned by one of
those "semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian,
crypto-fascist" Russians whom you so despise.
In the years that I worked in England, in an English coal mine, I worked with quite a few
fellow countrymen who were barely literate. I particularily remember one who often boasted
that he had never read a book since he left school.
Russia: The country with the highest literacy rate in Russia with almost 53% of the
population has tertiary education. It is estimated that 95% of adults in Russia have higher
secondary education and the country spends some 4.9% of GDP on education. 2.Jan 16,
2014
According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and
the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14
percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and
19 percent of high school graduates can't read.Jul 7, 2017
Adult Litercy UK
: Around 15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England, can be described as 'functionally
illiterate.' They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those
expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar
topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but
reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause
problems.
Many adults are reluctant to admit to their literacy difficulties and ask for help. One
of the most important aspects of supporting adults with low literacy levels is to increase
their self-esteem and persuade them of the benefits of improving their reading and
writing.
And the British Foreign Office has replied as follows:
"The government is clear these men are officers of the Russian military intelligence
service – the GRU – who used a devastatingly toxic, illegal chemical weapon on
the streets of our country."
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March.
Today – just as we have seen throughout – they have responded with obfuscation
and lies."
No obfuscation and lies from the FO, though!
Anything but a confession of guilt is "obfuscation and lies", it seems.
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in
March
I tell you what happened: nothing that the Russian state had anything to do with!
I suggest you ask your Yukie nazi pals for an account of what happened there, and your
pals in Tel-Aviv as well.
Russia, cleverly, has thrown down the gauntlet. If the FCO claims that the story of Petrov
and Boshirov is simply 'obfuscation and lies', then why not ask Russia to help make these
guys available for interview and send a couple of detectives plus interpreter on the next
flight to Moscow?
No matter how the FCO and British government huffs, puffs and tries to blow houses down,
ultimately they will be unable to explain why they haven't sought to question these guys.
Agreed, Fern. This was a very clever move on the chess board. Odd as these 2 characters are,
the latest gambit serves to take this whole matter out of the Harry Potter world of
geo-political magick, and put down to the mundane world of a detective story and criminal
procedures. It pushes the politicians aside to make room for the gumshoes. From this point
onward, the story is a police procedural.
"... In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia). ..."
Krutikov has an
interesting take on these guys. I think I will probably do this story tomorrow, in my
blog, as a "breaking news".
In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by
illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them
to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements,
for resale in Russia).
While in Salisbury they decided to have a look at the sights; that part rings true; might
as well see some sights.
The semi-legal nature of their "business" accounts for their nervousness; while their
status in the Russian criminal underworld accounts for their horror at Simonyan's assuming
them to be gay. An allegation which they rejected more vehemently than the accusations of
being poisoners!
Krutikov also points attention to another instance of Vladimir Putin's subtle humor.
Recall that when Putin announced the existence of these guys to the world, a couple of days
ago, he used a strange phrase: "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
As usual, Putin is one step ahead of everybody in this ludicrous chess game.
P.S. "никакого
особого
криминала" was the phrase used by
Putin. At the time nobody paid much attention and it was translated as "There is nothing
criminal there," but the actual phrase is "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
Okay, I have to make a factual correction, Krutikov wass wrong about Putin's quote, and one
of his commenters who questioned it, turned out to be correct. (Which is sort of sad for
Krutikov, because he built his blogpost around the humor of Putin's supposedly implication
that the duo are petty thieves.)
So, I found the actual vid of Putin making this utterance, it can be seen on this
link:
Update: The currently reigning theory in the Russian blogosphere is that Petrov and Boshirov
earn their living buying and selling anabolic steroids on the grey market. Simonjan herself
noted that Petrov has the build of a body-builder.
The theory that they are a "gay pair" is also highly plausible. When Simonjan asked them
about their relationship, they spazzed out and refused to answer. Blog commenters point out
that this would be the moment when a man would indignantly mention that he had a wife and
kids, or a girlfriend; but nothing like that ensued.
Other commenters have noted that Salisbury is well-known in the gay subculture for having
a large number of rather excellent gay bars. Something that might have also drawn this couple
there, in addition to seeing the cathedral spire!
In general, Russian press and blogosphere are having a field day with this story.
Agree with James on that one point, namely that the Russian press is becoming too tabloid-y
and going after the sensationalism.
I feel sorry for this duo in that, if they are indeed gay and have now been outed due to what
they call a "horrendous coincidence", then their lives in Russia will be miserable from this
point onward.
Russian society is simply not accepting of two grown men living together in a
relationship.
To add insult to injury, the gutter-commenters on the Russian blogs continue to call them
"pedophiles". Even though (duh!) they are both grown men.
Not sure if they live in Moscow or not. If in Moscow, they might still be able to survive,
as the city is so Western now. But if they live out there in the sticks -- forget it.
Meanwhile, I just thought of something else. If these guys were sophisticated enough to
play the Westie system, then they could adopt a tone of utter outrage, that the British
government is harassing them for being gay. The Brits would have to cave on that one and
issue a humble apology.
I've been thinking along similar lines – that their apparent shiftiness and caginess
about the nature of their work suggests they could be involved in something that's semi-legal
or which walks a fine line between the legal and the not.
We've seen lots of CCTV footage of Petrov and Boshirov in Salisbury but nothing has been
said of their movements in London; what they did there is probably the reason why they flew
to the UK. Either that or the GRU is deficient in training its would-be assassins on the
reliability (non-existent) of British rail services in bad weather.
Once again, Britain is stiff with CCTV. We know from previous discussions that there is CCTV
coverage of the Skripals' street and even their house. Where is the CCTV video of the two GRU
assassins on Skripal's street, or near his house? The British say they have this evidence and
are happily building timelines around it, but where is the proof? If they have it, why don't
they show it? It would shut Russian defenses right down. All we've seen is evidence of the
two being in Salisbury. Apparently being Russian In Salisbury is now like Driving While
Black. Both automatically presuppose you are a criminal.
If they are gay, then the UK is going to have really bad optics with its setup. Gay GRU
agents? According the UK MSM Russian gays are all being arrested and thrown in jail.
"... The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios. ..."
" Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish
to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most
breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It
attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site.
I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop's Palace, and then the
winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time
on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury
Cathedral. "
I had exactly the same thoughts! Holidays for most British moronic Tweeters means Benidorm
and boooze in "British Pubs" that arte emblazoned with "Fish & Chips" signs.
I mentioned above that before setting off for London in June, 2016, my two eldest insisted
that we include Stonehenge in our itinerary.
We were only in London for 3 days, though, before we set off for England, heading north to
the English lakeland national park.
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster:
"Lies and obfuscation!"
Interesting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery.
The Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.
The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of
6 killers.
The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.
The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still
liquid).
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most
deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when
the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [
Главное
разведывательное
управление -- Glavnoye
razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main
Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or
″GU″ [Главное
управление
Генерального
штаба
Вооружённых
Сил Российской
Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye
General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented
in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different,
often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his
sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by
stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened,
which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government
allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out
of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press
and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes
that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on
many of Karl Marx's precepts.
"... My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate." Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution to free thought and free speech to do so. ..."
"... Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive ..."
"... Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence. ..."
"... The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition. ..."
"... The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom, nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries. ..."
"... To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they serve only their own . ..."
The rather obvious suppression of the English version of what was a "best seller" in Germany suggests that the Western system
of thought manipulation and consent manufacture sees itself as weaker and more vulnerable than one might at first imagine.
We can see from a year+ of "Russiagate" that Western media is a clown-show, much of so called "alternative media" included.
My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate."
Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright
by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution
to free thought and free speech to do so.
Just like "200 years together" by Solzhenitsyn which was never officially published in English despite Andrei having authored
many works which were big sellers. Just an example of other private business and corporations are often fully responsible
for pro-establishment censorship.
The treatment of the book aroused suspicion because of its content – ie supine news outlets forever dancing to the tune of western
military imperatives.
Ongoing support for illegal wars tell us that the MSM has hardly been at the forefront of informing readers why war criminals
like Hilary and Obama keep getting away with it. In fact Obama, just like Kissinger was awarded a peace prize – so obviously something
has gone very wrong somewhere.
It may be, although it seems unlikely that the mis-handling of an important theme like this is simply due to oversight by the
publisher (as Matt claims) but neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody has had a word with someone in the
publishing world, perhaps because they are not overly keen on the fact Udo Ulfkotte has deviated from the media's mono-narrative
about why it is necessary for the US to destabilise countries and kill so many of their citizens.
Lets face it – it would be harder for the pattern to be maintained if the MSM was not so afraid of telling the truth, or at
least be more willing to hold to account politicians as the consequences of their disastrous policies unfold for all to see.
Maybe you want to have a go at answering the obvious question begged by such self evident truths – why are the MSM usually
lying?
Somebody said banning books is the modern form of book burning, and like Heinrich Heine said two centuries ago, "Where they burn
books, in the end, they start burning people."
Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent
the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people
what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive. If enough water sources are lost to fracking, and enough food sources
lost through poisoned seas and forest fires, many people will go to their camps as refuge but few will survive them. This ecological
destruction is for future population reduction.
In the US they use newspeak to say what the Nazis described with more honesty. Their master race became the indispensable nation,
their world domination became full spectrum dominance, and Totalerkrieg became the global war on terror. There will be others.
Farzad Basoft anyone ? Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations
have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence.
Maybe I am taking what you wrote out of context but I don't find it strange at all .It is just that someone, Udo, on the inside
has become a whistle blower , and confirmed what most suspected .The establishment can't have that.
As the economy growth has this so-called invisible hand, journalism also has an 'invisible pen'. One of the questions that
need an answer: how come feminists are so anti-Putin and anti-Russia? Easy to connect to dots?
The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance
newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and
paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of
credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition.
Those days
are gone: none of the newspapers make financial profits, they now exist because they have patrons. They always did, of course,
but now they have nothing else- the advertisers have left and circulation is diminishing rapidly.
The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom,
nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries.
As to competition that is restricted to publishers competing to demonstrate their loyalty to the government and their ingenuity
in candy coating its propaganda.
Anyone doubt that Luke Harding will be in the running for a Pulitzer? Or perhaps even the Nobel Prize for Literature?
For what it's worth, I skimmed through this very long link by Matt, and could find no mention of poison gas -- certainly no denunciation
-- just horrific conventional arms : Der Spiegel 1984:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13508659.html
Also for what it's worth, the German publisher's blurb which I got Google to translate above, says there is much more to the
book than old Soddem: the author names names and points to organizations.
Now, without any evidence, based only on my faulty memory and highly biased interpretation of events strung together on a timeline,
here is my conspiracy story about a very nice country called Iraq and a very nasty Iraqi called Saddam who came to a very nasty
end at the hands of his much more nasty friends, who first gave him a boost and then put in the boot.
1914 Great Britain invades Iraq and BP takes over the Iraqi oilfields.
1968 Iraqi govt member under Yaya wants to nationalize the oil. CIA coup replaces Yaya with Saddam as a safe pair of hands.
1970 Saddam the dirty dog does the dirty on the friends who put him in power; he nationalizes Iraqi oil. And nationalizes Iraqi
banks. From now on Saddam is a dead man walking. Like Mossadeq in Iran whom the US-UK replaced with the Shah
1978 But in Iran the Shah is replaced by the Islamic Socialist Republic -- who again nationalize Iranian oil. Saddam's
friends now face a dilemma: kill him first, or kill the Ayatollah's first? They decide to first go for the Ayatollahs -- with
Saddam's help.
1980 Saddam invades Iran with help from US and Germany -- including, strangely enough, generous supplies of poison gas.
1984-1989 Saddam's invasion of Iran flops. Reports about use of poison gas by Saddam begin to emerge, first in German newspapers
then even debated US govt.
1990 Saddam thinks he has restored credit with the US & Germany by using their weapons against Iran, and now has the green
light to invade another country. Finds out his mistake in the Gulf War. He is once again, a dead man walking. So is his country.
2001 Saddam is accused of harbouring Islamic terrorists who knocked down 3 skyscrapers by flying 2 passenger planes into
them. The idea of Secular Baathist Saddam in league with religious fanatics is ridiculous, but what the heck it's a story.
2003 Saddam hanged for, inter alia, use of chemical weapons; likewise his minister whom the MSM have a field day comically
calling "Chemical" Ali.
2017 Who's next? The Ayatollahs, of course. And anyone else who dares to nationalize "our" oil. Or "our" banks.
That is more than plausible. Unfortunately. Hard not to sympathize with the Iraqis and feel shame for what has been done in the
name of the US and UK. Rotten to the core, and sanctimonious to boot.
To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists
and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever
there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they
serve only their own .
The Guardian sells space to lobbyists too. Not ad space – article space. It's literally hiring itself out to whomever wants to
buy the right to publish an article under its name.
Well one things stands out in bold and that is the fear that such a revelation is associated with. 'Broad spectrum dominance'
of a central intelligent agency is a reversal of the wholeness of being expressing through all its parts.
Fake intelligence
is basically made up to serve a believed goal. The terrorism of fear generates the goal of a self-protection that sells true relationship
to 'save itself'.
This goes deep into what we take to be our mind. The mind that thinks it is in control by controlling what it thinks.
If I can observe this in myself at will, is it any surprise I can see it in our world?
What is the fear that most deeply motivates or drives the human agenda?
I do not ask this of our superficial thinking, but of a core self-honesty that cannot be 'killed' but only covered over with a
thinking-complex.
And is it insane or unreal to be moved by love?
We are creatures of choice and beneath all masking, we are also the creator of choice.
But the true creative is not framed into a choosing between, but feeling one call as the movement of it.
When the 'intelligence' of a masking narrative no longer serves, be the willingness for what you no longer claim to have, and
open to being moved from within.
I am so tired of the simmering fury that lives inside me. This bubbling cauldron brim full of egregious truths, images and accounts
accumulated over nearly 40 years of looking behind the headlines. I disagree that the usurpation of journalists and media organisations
is in any way a recent phenomena. It certainly predates my emergent mind. And even the most lauded of anti-establishment hacks
and film makers self-censored to some degree. True, the blatant in your face propaganda and thought control agenda has accelerated,
but it was always there. I do not believe Chomsky, Oliver Stone, Pilger and their like could have done much more than they have,
that is to guide us in a direction counter to the official narrative. And to insinuate they are gatekeepers, when our heads never
stretch above the parapet, is really just a reflection of our own frustration that despite their work the only change remains
for the worse.
Yet I fear worse is to come. Our safe bitching in glorious anonymity has been all that we have had as solace to the angst that
pervades us, the other 1%. But the the thumbscrew is tightening. We may be as little as months away from any dissent being entirely
removed from the internet by AI algorithms. I have already been receiving warnings on several sites anyone here would call legitimate
that have had their security certificates removed and the statement that the site may contain malicious code etc. How prepared
are we for blackout?
A foundation should be set up in remembrance of Udo and sponsored by all true journalists and truth seekers. Maybe some day there
will be a Udo Ulfkotte award to the bravest journalist of the year .Wouldn't that be something .Udo's work would not have been
in vain . That would throw a monkey wrench into orgs like the Guardian and their ilk .Just dreaming out loud maybe , but with
good intentions.
Thank you Alun for the link to the German edition, which I have managed to download (naughty me!) I think the suggestion of retranslating
important sections and dressing these in some commentary for (presumably legitimate) publication on e.g. Off-G would be a good
idea. I'm quite fluent in German and would be glad to help.
Mods: do you see any legal pitfalls?
That depends on who holds the rights to the English language version and the original and whether they would want to take issue.
If it's Ulfkotte's family they may be happy to see his work get some sort of airing in English. If it's his publishers we can
imagine they will see things differently – as indeed would whoever it is that seems to want the book buried.
I heard it is blocked in many western countries, as the site is well known for its disregard for copyright. Fortunately not the
case where I am (NZ). If you're technically inclined, a VPN or anonymising application may help, although a VPN that 'exits' in
a western area won't get you any further ahead.
One hopes. I also hold out hope for F. William Engdahl's "Geheimakte NGOs." Here's a Dissident Voice article in which Engdahl
discusses the role of NGOs in aiding and abetting the US regime change program:
Yes, it has also been interesting to note that in 2015 the Guardian published a review of Richard Sakwa's book 'Frontline Ukraine'
in which the author was critical of both NATO and the EU, in fomenting this crisis. The 2014 'coup' which was carried out in February
2014 was, according to the independent geopolitical publication, Strator, 'the most blatant in history.' The appraisal which was
carried out by Guardian journalist Jonathon Steele was generally favourably disposed to Sakwa's record of events; however, Mr
Steele now rarely publishes anything in the Guardian. Read into this what you like.
As to Sakwa's latest book,'' Russia Against the Rest'', – nothing, not a peep, it doesn't exist, it never existed, it never
will exist. It would appear to be the case that the Guardian is now fully integrated into the military/surveillance/media-propaganda
apparatus. The liberal gatekeeper as to what is and what isn't acceptable. Its function is pure to serve the interests of the
powerful, in much the same way as the church did in the middle ages. The media doesn't just serve the interests power it is also
part of the same structure of dominance, albeit the liberal wing of the ruling coalition.
During the British war against the Boers in South Africa, at the turn of the 19/20 century, the then Manchester Guardian took
a brave and critical stand against the UK government. This lead to its offices in Manchester being attacked by jingoistic mobs,
as was the home of the then editor C.P.Scott, whose family needed police protection. In those days 'Facts were Sacred', unlike
the present where opposing views are increasingly ignored or suppressed.
Having just watched the documentary film tribute to I.F. Stone, "All Governments Lie", I was struck by the fact that no-one mentioned
Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist (who outed General McChrystal, but whose Mercedes went mysteriously out of control,
hit a tree and exploded, throwing the engine 200 yards clear of the wreck ). Here was a film about control and self-censorship,
yet no-one even breathed the acronyms C.I.A. or FBI. Matt Taibbi referred to a silent coup, but none dared to mention the assassinations
of JFK, MLK and RFK. These doyens of Truth included the thoroughly dodgy Noam Chomsky. Finally, the Spartacus website suggests
that the saintly I.F. Stone was in the pay of the CIA. Other terms unspoken were CIA Operation Mockingbird or Operation Northwoods.
There was a clip of 9/11, but zero attempt to join up all the dots.
RIP Udo Ulfkotte. CIA long ago developed a dart to induce all the signs of a heart attack, so one is naturally somewhat suspicious.
Lies and assassinations are two sides of the same coin.
The only thing harder to find than Udo Ulfkotte's book is a Guardian review of it.
I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated (i.e censored) followed by a yellow or red card for
the cheeky commentator.
The level of pretence on this forum has now reached epic proportions, and seems to cuts both ways, ie. commentators pretending
that there are not several subjects which are virtually impossible to discuss in any depth (such as media censorship), and moderators
pretending that 'community standards' is not simply a crude device to control conversational discourse, especially when a commentators
point of view stray beyond narrow, Guardian approved borders.
Books, such as 'Bought Journalists' (which expose the corruption at the heart of western media) are especially inconvenient
for the risible 'fake news' agenda currently being rammed down the readerships throat – some of these people at the Guardian have
either absolutely no insight, or no shame.
Ulfkotte and Ganser in their ways are both telling a similar story – NATO, i.e an arm of the US military industrial complex
are mass murderers and sufficiently intimidating to have most western journalists singing from the same hymn sheet.
Since the Guardian follows the party line it is only possible to send coded or cryptic messages (BTL) should commentators wish
to deviate from the approved narrative.
For example, I was 'pre-moderated' for having doubts about the veracity of the so called 'Parsons Green tube bomb', especially
the nature of the injuries inflicted on a young model who looked like she was suffering from toothache.
https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.628812:1505494262/wo16-web-parsons-green.JPG?f=16×9&w=1024&$p$f$w=e135eda
Been there, done that. What ordinarily happens if the submission is proper and cannot be censored on the basis of impropriety
or foulmouthedness or any other good reason, but exposes a Guardian sacred cow in an embarrassing light, is that it is said to
be off topic. Now this is really unaccountable, and truly subjective.
The community in community standards is "them" and has close ties to the 1%, if I hazard a guess.
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
Some interesting insights. Looks like high stake political poker
Notable quotes:
"... While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Skripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels. ..."
machine translated from the original Russian; excerpted:
The fact is that Russia pursues its policy without regard to their provocations. She defeated the Wahhabis trained by the
West in the Caucasus, snatched Crimea from under the nose. The US scenario in Ukraine broke. Restores the EAEC. In Syria, Russia
completely threw the Anglo-Saxon West off the pedestal, which he held there all the post-war 50 years. That is, with its bombing
of head choppers, Russia has broken the rigid "Full Spectrum Dominance" situation created and maintained by the Americans
since the dissolution of the USSR.
This is a disaster, which the Anglo-Saxon world has nothing to answer nuclear to Russia.
While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful
bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck
a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Skripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed
to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling
class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels.
But worst of all, the actions in Idlib demonstrate the US weakness. Trump is completely beaten down - by his neocon rivals,
not
Russia. Russia has revealed the preparations for the provocation of the Khimatki in Idlib, which the US rep in the United Nations
has announced to the whole world. With all the details, such number of barrels of chorine delivered to headchoppers
and their color,
as well the path of those barrels to Idlib and places of their secret storage. Now with those revelation it make much less
sense to launch this operation.
But the operation will be. The match will take place in any weather. The United States has already outlined the places on
which they will strike rocket-bomb strikes. The assault will be more decisive than the previous time. Preparation is as if
the US is confident - the chlorine attack will take place. Then, when they decide in the US. Not in Damascus, but in Washington.
That is, in general, all masks are dropped and the States openly prepare for aggression with provocation in a sovereign country
where they are open in the status of an occupier. And even if there is no chemotherapy at all, the American blow will take
place. Too much Russian was battered by bombs of American protégés. They are too close to defeat, for which the reason for
finding Americans in Syria will disappear. How can this be allowed? The impact of prestige is necessary and it will be, even
if the Sun falls to the ground and the Mississippi will flow backwards. Only prestige is not visible.
The USA are increasingly falling down replacing the strategy with tactics. The attack on Syria is necessary for Americans not because
they will decide the outcome of the campaign. But because the US needs to introduce its
ground forces to change the course of the war, with all possible negative consequences such as possible the death of the military
personnel and the open clash
with Iran, Syria and Russia. And even with Turkey. With China silently standing behind them the
global consequences of this action are unpredictable. One possible consequence can well be the collapse of NATO. This "Second Vietnam"
might crush not only the American president, but the US itself. The other scenario is that the USA just want to "score a goal of prestige" and leave
the lost match. They will strike at Syria, where again Russian intelligence will reveal in advance the alleged targets of the
strike, withdraw the critical assets from there, and then we have a firework of exploding Tomahawks intercepted by
defenders.
Russia in Idlib is now in a very difficult position due to Turkey, not so much the USA. The repelling of the USA
attach is one thing, but the main danger that it can't achieve too much on the ground de to Turkish interests in the area.
Trump attack would be mainly for domestic consumption, the show created on the4 eve of the congressional elections. And
even repelling the attack can be counterproductive -- Russia risks drowning Trump, instead of somehow supporting
his formidable image and helping to win. Simply because Trump is beneficial to Russia - it's too cool he breaks everything
on what the American power of the past decades was based. Helping his impeachment is not in the national interests of Russia.
That means that Trump must come out of those stupid and counterproductive Tomahawks salvos without losing his face.
The US remains the world hegemon and want to remain as such for a long time. That's why it beats Russia with sanctions.
But Russia does not need to oppose the USA. It just need to help to build a countervailing power. And Berlin, supported by Moscow's cheap gas,
can be countervailing force for London in Europe.
The threat of losing global hegemony is very painful for both the British and Americans. It is so painful that
they organized the collapse of the ruble and this false flag operation
in Salisbury. And then OPSW were intimidated by British special services.
Russia should responds asymmetrically -- by continuing to build up its economy and prosperity of its citizens and ignore such insane and ineffective
actions by London and Washington.
Russia already had shown Erdogan how easily caravans with oil are bombed,
Russia does not want to allow its exports from Syria. And the US will have to withdraw from Syria there sooner or later.
Still, Russia should give Trump the opportunity to finish his term without outright humiliation in Syria. The United States
might not have the second such president, as Russia will not have a second Gorbachev.
"... "Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders." ..."
"... Renowned French security expert Paul Barril, in an interview, alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others. ..."
"... "Russia has nothing to do with the murder of Litvinenko. The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia." ..."
"Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia". Exactly. Just as 'Novichok' was
allegedly used in Salisbury, due to it allegedly being developed in Russia (Mirzyanov) – even though it wasn't actually used against
the Skripals at all. Maybe this element of the hoax was inspired by Beluga's use of polonium in the Litvinenko affair.
Miheila, the polonium story always seems crazy to me. It relies on Litvinenko being too mean not to buy his own cup of tea. Hardly
a foolproof assassination method.
PAGE 4 OF 4
This follows a similar pattern to Alexander Litvinenko. Walter Litvinenko, his father, believes Alex received a second dose of
agent whilst in hospital. It was a Worlds Apart interview but is now the subject of an Ofcom complaint. Walter said his suspicions
were raised by the secrecy of the British government and the fact that they wouldn't let him see any reports. So he made his own
investigations, and from initially thinking it was Russia, he now believes it was the British government. He returned to Russia
in fear of his life.
"Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western
intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders."
Renowned French security expert Paul Barril, in an interview, alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and
the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid
to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others.
"Russia has nothing to do with the murder of Litvinenko. The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen
as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit
president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was
an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia."
Barril mentions the outspoken Putin foe, financier William Browder, as being in close cooperation with Berezovsky in the discreditation
efforts. He also says he is sure Berezovsky was murdered by his secret service handlers after they realized he was behaving erratically
and had to be silenced so that he wouldn't give them away.
"... So they went through the same corridor just like I demonstrated in https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/ . This means the UK police manipulated the images, i.e. fabricated the evidence. Very interesting to have this confirmed directly.... ..."
I added bold in the quote below:
--- The RT editor-in-chief also touched upon the most puzzling picture of the two, the photo
from the Gatwick airport.
"Here is the picture that puzzled the whole world, Gatwick airport, you are leaving
through a gate literally in the same times, almost the same second. How did it happen?" she
asked.
" We always go together through the same corridor and the same custom service
officer or a policeman. One goes, the other waits. We went through the corridor together, we
always [do it] together .
How did it happen? It's better to ask them [UK police]," Boshirov replied.
---
So they went through the same corridor just like I demonstrated in https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/ . This
means the UK police manipulated the images, i.e. fabricated the evidence. Very interesting to
have this confirmed directly....
... hilariously, UK security minister Wallace asserted the Novichok was assuredly in a perfume bottle, got into the country
because of poor baggage checks, had the capability "to kill or injure hundreds and hundreds of people", but was not a health risk
to persons on the plane or public transit used by the suspects. ????
Article over at the Stalker Zone on the forged letter that brought down the first UK Labour government of Ramsey McDonald in 1924.
"The frank forgery that is the "Zinoviev's letter" came to London from the Riga department of the Secret Intelligence Service
of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of Britain (or SIS, nowadays better known as MI-6) with an assurance that the authenticity
of the document "does not raise doubts" (the most ancient form of "highly likely") The Labour government was doomed. Rectifying
the situation in such a short period of time before elections didn't seem to be possible."
Mark Twain's truism still holds today, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
And the media is little different except for sites like this. Thanks B and keep up the good fight. Don't let the bastards get
you down.
Vladimir Kornilov: The Prequel to the Skripal Affair – Britain Investigates the "Great Forgery"
To add to Norwegian@3, George Galloway made a couple of very interesting points,
especially about the time stamp on the photo. He said the Skripals left the house in the
morning, never to return. The "Russian agents" could not have arrived in Salisbury until noon
or thereabouts...hmmmm...and they would have had to paint the doorknob with this deadliest of
poisons in full view of everyone. Perhaps the Russians have learned to time travel or warp
time. I wouldn't put it past them http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50231.htm
Prime Minister Theresa May made a
statement to accuse Russia of being behind the Skripal poisoning
case . She went to address the parliament right after prosecutors accused two Russian men,
allegedly military intelligence officers, to perpetrate the assassination attempt. These are
the first criminal charges in the case that
has spoiled the West-Russian relations so much. The British government has issued EU arrest
warrants and Interpol red notices to have the two individuals arrested by police in any country
should they leave Russia's territory.
According to the PM, Great Britain and its friends must step up collective efforts against
Russia. Its military intelligence service (the GRU) is to be specifically targeted employing
"the full range of tools from across our national security apparatus." Before making
the speech that
sounded hostile toward Moscow, the PM had talked the matter over with US President Trump
and other friendly world leaders. Ms May is expected to raise the issue at the UN General
Assembly later this month. No doubt, London will ask the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the case. The UK will probably impose sanctions of its
own and call on others to join. As usual, media "leaks" will pour more fuel on the fire.
Anti-Russia forces in the West will get the second wind.
Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office,
attributed direct blame on Russian President Vladimir, something Ms. May avoided to do. He
said the Russian leader bears responsibility for the nerve agent attack.
The photos of two men that have visited the UK are not evidence to support the PM' claims.
"We have heard or seen two names, these names mean nothing to me personally," Kremlin
aide Yuri Ushakov
told reporters in Moscow. "I don't understand why this was done and what sort of signal
the British side is sending." But one thing is curtain – the British government
wants as much noise and publicity as possible. It raises hue and cry in an evident attempt
to further deteriorate the West-Russia relations and it does it on purpose. Why now? Because
this is the right time to pursue the hidden agenda.
US Ambassador to Britain Woody Johnson said on Twitter: "The US and UK stand firmly
together in holding Russia accountable for its act of aggression on UK soil." He was quick
to react. Evidently, Mr Johnson wasted no time on waiting for instructions. It had all been
known, discussed and decided before.
By spearheading the anti-Russia campaign in the West, London increases its political weight
before Brexit takes place. With its unity in peril, the West needs something to keep it
together and the Russia's bogey comes in handy.
The second round of US sanctions imposed to punish Russia for the alleged, but never proven,
use of nerve agents, is much tougher than the first one in force since August. It is to take
effect in November – the same month US midterm elections take place.
The "Skripal sanctions" are not introduced by Congress but the State Department. It's up to
the president to impose them or not. If President Trump's party keeps the majority in both
houses, the pressure to prove he is tough on Russia will ease. The president may soften the
sanctions or not impose them at all. The reinvigoration of "Skripal poisoning" campaign will
make it much harder to do. Donald Trump as well as EU leaders will be under constant pressure
to do more to counter Russia.
True, the EU is not interested in whipping up tensions in its relationship with Russia amid
the sanctions war and other things to deteriorate its relationship with the United States. But
on the other hand, Eurosceptics, who are friendly to Moscow, are predicted to win big in the
European parliament election in May. They may get every third vote and have enough seats to
stymie the functioning of the "unreformed" EU as we know it today. It will put into jeopardy
the very survival of the bloc. Many of Eurosceptics want the relations with Russia normalized
and the sanctions lifted. Be it Skripal or something else, an anti-Russia campaign is needed to
attack them. They'll be painted as "useful idiots" or "traitors" promoting Russia's evil plans
to destroy the West. Here again, the imaginary "Russia threat" serves the purpose
perfectly.
The events in Syria are distorted to denigrate Russia but that's happening far away.
Spreading around the stories about Moscow using chemical weapons in Europe may have the desired
effect to keep voters away from throwing their support behind those who can change the European
political landscape.
There is actually nothing new in what the British PM stated. It's not so important what
exactly she said. It's timing that matters. The moment is right for anti-Russia hysteria to be
given a fresh impetus. Will this tactics work? The November elections in the US and the
European elections in May will show. The closer is the vote, the more concocted stories about
the nefarious Russia's activities will come into the spotlight.
"... "I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they appear and tell everything about themselves," ..."
"... "Neither Russia's top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials, have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury," ..."
"... "It seems very strange that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia were to blame," ..."
"... "bits of evidence that may look pretty compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law." ..."
"... "perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal's front door." ..."
HomeWorld NewsWe know who people named as suspects in Skripal
case are, they are civilians – Putin Published time: 12 Sep, 2018 06:56 Edited time:
12 Sep, 2018 12:57 Get short URL 'Alexander
Petrov' and 'Ruslan Boshirov' are seen in an image handed out by the Metropolitan Police in
London, Britain / Reuters Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal
case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. Saying that
there is "nothing criminal" about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in
question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.
"I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they
appear and tell everything about themselves," he said, addressing the audience during the
Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in the Russian city of Vladivostok.
Earlier in September, UK prosecutors named two Russians they suspect of poisoning Sergei
Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury this March. According to London, their names are
Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of
spinning the case to stir anti-Russian sentiment.
Beyond identifying them as Russian nationals, the prosecutors gave no indication as to who
the men are.
After London again blamed Russia, implying that officials at the highest levels of power
could be responsible for the poisoning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebuffed the
allegations.
"Neither Russia's top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials,
have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury," he said at that time.
The Kremlin spokesman added that Putin didn't personally speak to the two individuals
identified by the British authorities as suspects in the case. Russian law enforcement has not
made any moves to prosecute them, Peskov said.
According to the investigators, the suspects who arrived in Britain from Moscow left traces
of the poison used in the attack in the hotel room they stayed in. They were also caught on
CCTV cameras in Salisbury twice, including on the day of the attack, and traveled back directly
to the Russian capital.
This trail of evidence from the supposedly highly-trained perpetrators casts doubt over
Moscow's involvement, according to a number of security experts. "It seems very strange
that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of
evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the
conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia
were to blame," Charles Shoebridge, a security expert and former British military officer,
told
RT. Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, said the inquiry into the case has
effectively turned into a trial by media, based on "bits of evidence that may look pretty
compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law."
London also insists that a counterfeit Nina Ricci perfume box was used as container and
delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning. It was later found by Charlie Rowley in
the town of Amesbury, not far from Salisbury. They also claim that the noxious agent was in a
bottle that had been altered to make it "perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the
country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal's front
door."
Reacting to the prosecutors' statement, Russian envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzya joked that
the nerve agent attack has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci.
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are
'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly
avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do
so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the
would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist
squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime
in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister
on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more
refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
FSB arrests ISIS member 'who planned murder of a Donbass leader on behalf of
Ukraine'
The Russian security service, the FSB, says it has arrested an Islamic State operative
who was planning to murder one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's
Republic (DNR) on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities.
The suspected terrorist was identified as Mejid Magomedov, who was born in 1988 in Russia's
southern Dagestan republic. He was arrested on Sunday in Russia's Smolensk region in the
west of the country.
https://www.rt.com/news/438028-fsb-isis-member-ukraine/
Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria - George Galloway
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are
'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly
avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do
so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the
would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist
squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime
in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister
on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more
refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
"the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he
had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury "
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They
suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving
integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision.
For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the
organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the
future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in
the blood of the innocent.
Two Russian GRU hit men who apparently spent a considerable amount of their small amount of
time whilst on a mission of death in Merry England mugging in front of CCTV cameras.
And they only killed one person, and not their intended target at that: a junky, drug
pushing bum's alcoholic womanfriend, who unfortunatly was accidently contaminated with the
deadliest nerve poison known to man.
As a Scotland counter-terrorist chief plod said, these were trained professionals in the
killing trade, and as Prime Minister May said, they belong to a tightly disciplined
organization whose orders come directly from the top, meaning the Dark Lord no less.
Simply sickening and despicable!
Good job Russians are a bunch of dickheads, otherwise the whole population of Salisbury
might have been poisoned – or the South of England, even.
It's amazing that so much crisp, instantly-recognizable footage exists of the hit men, almost
as if they were laying out an easily-reconstructable route for observers; at least, as
contrasted with the blurry and ambiguous photo evidence of the Skripals, which seems to rely
on happy snaps by friends as much as government resources. Until they get Yulia on camera to
make her post-Novichok debut, of course – then, it's theatre-quality. In fact, the
quality of British evidence seems to go up markedly as soon as the preceding exhibits are the
object of public derision.
The poison was polonium-210, a rare radioactive isotope, tiny, invisible, undetectable.
Ingested, it was fatal. The polonium had originated at a nuclear reactor in the Urals and a
production line in the Russian town of Sarov. A secret FSB laboratory, the agency's "research
institute", then converted it into a dinkily portable weapon.
Lugovoi and Kovtun, however, were rubbish assassins. The quality of Moscow's hired
killers had slipped since the glory days of the KGB.
It's because they're idiots, see!
Although Russians are a direct to Western civilization and against whom we must be ever on
guard, they are also all congenital dickheads, doomed to failure -- always.
"... We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as a loan shark's leg-breaker. ..."
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK and France bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true political dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
metadata for the uk police photos show the airport pix used micro$oft photo editing app
back on may 3rd. check the direct download buttons at the police site pages and ignore the
html embed.
"... "There were plenty of baseless allegations against Moscow and concrete sanctions based on them. Apparently, the only winner in this continued theatre of absurdity is Nina Ricci, the product of which got some free ad as a container for the toxic chemical," ..."
The nerve agent attack in Salisbury has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci,
which got free advertising due to a disguise apparently used by the perpetrators to hide the
poison, the Russian envoy to the UN joked. The British investigators said a counterfeit Nina
Ricci bottle was used as a container and delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning
of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March. The same container was found by a struggling
couple from Amesbury, who got poisoned themselves. Read more
Speaking at a UN Security Council session on Thursday, Russian envoy Vasily Nebenzya,
denounced Britain for accusing Russia of the crimes, saying that the allegations are not base
on any hard evidence.
"There were plenty of baseless allegations against Moscow and concrete sanctions based
on them. Apparently, the only winner in this continued theatre of absurdity is Nina Ricci, the
product of which got some free ad as a container for the toxic chemical," he said.
Britain says two Russian military intelligence agents tried to kill Skripal with a
weapons-grade chemical weapon, claiming the identification was made by the British
intelligence. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of spinning the case to stir
anti-Russian sentiment.
"... The UK has stirred up the Skripal saga for the sake of waging a broader campaign to kowtow to the anti-Russian rhetoric inside the British government, ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone has told RT. ..."
"... "military intelligence agents" ..."
"... "What struck me over last couple of years seem to me ratcheting up of anti-Russian sentiment almost trying to recreate a Cold War," ..."
"... "a hidden political agenda here as part of broader anti-Russian campaign" ..."
The UK has stirred up the Skripal saga for the sake of waging a broader campaign to
kowtow to the anti-Russian rhetoric inside the British government, ex-London mayor Ken
Livingstone has told RT. The latest smoking gun of allegations against Russia fired by
London, with the British Prime Minister Theresa May claiming that Russian "military
intelligence agents" attempted to murder former spy Sergei Skripal, leaves too many
questions and doubts, Livingstone believes.
"What struck me over last couple of years seem to me ratcheting up of anti-Russian
sentiment almost trying to recreate a Cold War," the former mayor told RT. He stressed
that London's turning its back to Moscow's constant readiness to cooperate and failure to
present to the public a shred of evidence – if there is any – might be a sign of
"a hidden political agenda here as part of broader anti-Russian campaign" inside the
British government.
Livingstone is not the only one who doubts the narrative. Independent political analyst Dan
Glazebrook, who also shared his views with RT, pointed how clumsy the alleged agents should
have been – from taking a train to reach their target to allowing themselves to be caught
on CCTV.
Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.
Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the
identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who
briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents,
and pointing the finger at President Putin.
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which
details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is
in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the
Ukraine.
@Iris Talking of
5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.
Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the
identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who
briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents,
and pointing the finger at President Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VqSJCa7RA
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which
details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is
in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine.
Novichock poisoning false flag (Continued).
A possible explanation of the Novichok story being spun at the moment in the UK is that a
Western/Israeli military attack on Syria is in preparation to stop the Arab Syrian Army from
entering Idlib, the last terrorist stronghold.
Such Western intervention requires the pretext of a chemical attack, that will be staged
in the field by the proxy White Helmets, while UK public opinion will be subdued with
terrorising stories of weapons of mass destruction.
This same pretext was used for the April 2018 Western bombing of Syria. This bombing was
aimed at hitting key Syrian targets, but its scale was finally limited by the intervention of
General Mattis, who dreaded reciprocated actions against the 3000 US servicemen present in
Syria.
"The White Helmets (and an alleged chemical attack) are the last hope for regime change
in Syria"
Very interesting interview of former UK Ambassador Ford by SyrianGirl:
One day after Theresa May's Novichok show at the British Parliament , France's Chief of
Military Staff Francois Lecointre has declared that France is ready to strike Syria should
she dare a "chemical attack" on Idlib.
Both poodles each side of the Channel are barking in synchronism; Israel is pulling on the
leashes and something bad is in preparation.
Here is Francois Lecointre in his brown uniform. Unknown to us stupid plebeians, France
must be surrounded by steppes and deserts for brown to have been chosen as camouflage
colour.
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal. The recent development in the Skripals poisoning case is
guaranteed to plunge already dire relations between Moscow and London through the floor. At a
set-piece press conference in London, Neil Basu, head of the London Met's counter-terrorism
police force, positively identified two Russian suspects in the case. He produced CCTV images
of the two individuals along with their names and details of their movements from Russia to the
UK and back again. He also alleged that according to a " working hypothesis " the
suspects smuggled the Novichok substance used in the attempt on the lives of former Russia
intelligence office and British spy Sergei Skripal, and daughter Yulia, into the country with
them from Russia. Read more Names of
'Russian suspects' in Skripal case published by UK don't mean anything to us –
Moscow
The rocket fuel this very significant and very serious development adds to the already
seething anti-Russia sentiment and feeling that dominates the minds of the British political
and media establishment is self-evident. At a time of multiple crises involving Moscow and
London – crises yet to be resolved around the conflict in Syria, tensions over Ukraine,
the presence of NATO troops and military assets close to Russia's western border, sanctions,
etc. – it is extraordinarily worrying that relations between both countries have now
plunged to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.
That the Russian state is capable of carrying out an attack of this nature is not in doubt.
All states are capable of carrying out such attacks, and all states, including Britain, have
carried them out at various points in their history. But the timing of this particular attack
is key, given that it took place just a few months prior to the start of the World Cup in
Russia, and at a time when the Russian government was extending itself in attempting to repair
relations with the West with a view to achieving normalization.
Then, too, the motive remains impossible to discern. Sergei Skripal had been living openly
under his own name in Salisbury, England, where the attack took place, for some time, so
clearly did not believe that he was in any danger.
The international damage to Russia's reputation as a consequence of being behind such an
attack is likewise not in any doubt.
These points are not, of course, made as infallible proof that the Russian government or
intelligence was not responsible. But they are pertinent in of themselves, given the
context.
Another point worth raising is the sheer crudity of two supposed Russian agents taking a
direct flight to and from the UK to carry out the attack and travelling together both ways.
Such amateurish planning is the stuff of your average Hollywood spy spoof movie rather anything
you would associate with a serious intelligence agency.
Significantly, during his press conference and presentation, Mr Basu did not go as far as
alleging Russian state involvement. Such restraint, however, has long been a foreign land where
the prime minister is concerned.
In her statement to the Commons on this latest development, Theresa May wasted no time in
unleashing a rhetorical artillery barrage against the Kremlin, buoyed by a feral chorus of MPs
who almost to a man and woman had already embraced Russia as the officially designated enemy of
all that is holy and good in the world.
Either the prime minister knows something that the head of the Met's counter-terrorism
police force does not, or we have entered an age when blaming Russia for everything is an
unofficial requirement of the duties of high political office in Westminster.
To be fair to the prime minister though, she's been blaming the Kremlin for this crime
almost since the very day it took place, gleefully riding the wave of anti-Russia hysteria that
had already been whipped up by a mainstream media whose denizens one James Connolly was once
minded to describe as " The inkslingers of the jingo press ."
With her leadership mired in crisis over Brexit, and with her errant former foreign
secretary and putative prime minister, Boris Johnson, currently breathing down her neck with a
looming challenge to her leadership, for the prime minister the timing of this development
could not, politically, be more convenient. For at such moments she is able to give free rein
to the appearance of the kind of strong and robust leadership qualities that are, in truth,
grievously absent.
Going forward, this will only add more grist to the mill of a neocon firmament whose very
existence is predicated on maintaining Russia in the role of existential threat to Western
civilization. A frog's chorus of calls and demands for ever more stringent trade, financial and
economic sanctions against Moscow will reach a crescendo, buttressed by an uptick in the
deployment of troops and military assets to eastern Europe in a futile effort to intimidate and
cow the Kremlin into accepting its prescribed status as a vassal of Washington and its
allies.
Worryingly, in 2018 we have reached the stage that George Orwell described in his classic
novel, 1984: " The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed
that no past or future agreement with him was possible. "
Western ideologues should take a moment to consider that Orwell wrote his classic work as a
warning not a blueprint.
"... Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of President Vladimir Putin's government. ..."
"... Invariably, British politicians and news media refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta against critics and traitors. ..."
"... The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is simply no question about it in their assertions. ..."
Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have
met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile
individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent
Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of
President Vladimir Putin's government.
Invariably, British politicians and news media
refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign
activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta
against critics and traitors.
The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in
the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British
and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is
simply no question about it in their assertions.
The claims have also been given a quasi-legal veracity, with a British government-appointed
inquiry in the case of Alexander Litvinenko making a conclusion
that his death in 2006 was "highly likely" the result of a Kremlin plot to assassinate. Putin
was personally implicated in the death of Litvinenko by the official British inquiry. The
victim was said to have been poisoned with radioactive polonium. Deathbed images of a
bald-headed Litvinenko conjure up a haunting image of alleged Kremlin evil-doing.
Once the notion of Russian evil-doing is inculcated the public mind, then subsequent events
can be easily invoked as "more proof" of what has already been "established". Namely, so it
goes, that the Russian state is carrying out assassinations on British territory.
Thus, we see this "corroborating" effect with the alleged poisoning of a former Russian
double-agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in Salisbury back in March this year.
An 'Immortal Regiment' march celebrating Victory Day in Riga, Latvia.
It has been nearly three decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Despite Russia's
reemergence on the world stage as a respected power after market-oriented 'reforms' destroyed
its economy for the duration of the nineties, the breakup of the USSR is an event regarded by
an increasing amount of Russians as a catastrophic tragedy rather than a triumph of 'freedom
and democracy.'
In recent years, there have been numerous polls showing that more than half of Russians not
only regret
the collapse of the Soviet Union but would even
prefer for its return . However, the nostalgia only comes as a surprise to those who have
forgotten that not long before the failed August Coup that led to its demise, the first and
only referendum in its history was held in March of 1991 which polled citizens if they wished
to preserve the Soviet system.
The results were more than three quarters of the population in the entire socialist
federation (including Russia) voting a resounding yes with a turnout of 80% in the
participating republics. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the outcome
was more than 90% voting for renewal. Even the country with the lowest amount of support, the
Ukraine, was still 70% in favor. While the measure was officially banned in six republics --
Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and the three Baltic states -- despite being unrecognized by their
local governments the vote was still organized and the outcomes were all over 90%.
Ironically, the union dissolved five months later under the pretext of establishing
'democracy' in Eastern Europe just as it ignored the very wishes of Soviet citizens. After more
than 25 years of suffering at the hands of economic and trade liberalization, gutting of state
subsidies and mass privatization of the former state-run industry, is it any wonder that
Russians are yearning for a return to socialism?
The consequences of the disintegration are still felt in the relations with the United
States today. It planted the seeds for the carefully arranged revival of the Cold War that was
hiding in plain sight until it surfaced with 'color revolutions', proxy wars and dubious spy
poisonings. One source of the strained relations between the West and Russia has been the
Baltic states, which burgeoned following their integration into the European Union and
enrollment in NATO membership in 2004 during its enlargement. NATO
continues its provocations with massive war games bordering Kaliningrad, while Moscow is
painted as the aggressor even though the U.S. defense spending increase this year alone
surpasses Russia's entire military budget.
The antagonism between Latvia, Estonia and(to a lesser degree) Lithuania with Moscow stems
partly from from the cessation of the USSR itself. The conclusion of the Cold War resulted in
more than 25 million Russians instantly discovering themselves living abroad in foreign
countries. For seventy years, fifteen nations had been fully integrated while Russians migrated
and lived within the other republics. The Soviet collapse immediately reignited national
conflicts, from the Caucasus to the Baltics. While the majority of the ethnic Russian diaspora
live in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, nearly 1 million reside in the post-Soviet Baltics and since
1991 they have been subjected to a campaign of forced assimilation, discrimination and
exclusion.
The Baltic republics made nationalism their official state policy while moving away from
Russia's sphere of influence into a closer relationship with the West. Boris Yeltsin's
subservience to Washington eclipsed any concern for the fate of captive Russians as the Soviet
Bloc was herded into the EU, but his administration did quarrel with the new Baltic authorities
and
accused them of creating an anti-Russian 'apartheid.'
As geopolitical tensions have increased under his successor, Vladimir V. Putin, who has
embarrassed Western imperialism in the international arena, so has Moscow's disapproval of the
treatment of its minority held hostage in the Baltic Rim. Is a comparison to South Africa
warranted? Even if the similarities are only partial, the three states show evidence of deep
ethnocracy.
While less than 10% of Lithuania is ethnically Russian, in Latvia and Estonia the number is
much higher at a quarter of their entire populations. The three governments have passed laws
promoting their official languages and restored citizenship requirements that existed up until
1940, demanding that their Russian minorities apply or risk losing basic rights and guarantees.
Russia has interpreted these measures as a form of slow-motion ethnic cleansing intended to
coerce Russians to immigrate elsewhere.
When the three states first became independent, in an act of systematic discrimination they
distributed non-citizen 'alien' passports to ethnic Russians and excluded them from obtaining
citizenship automatically, even if they had lived and worked in a Baltic state for their entire
life. In fact, citizenship was not immediately granted to anyone whose ancestry arrived after
1940, a policy that specifically targeted ethnic Russians who without naturalization are left
stateless.
For example, when Estonia first declared its independence more than 30% of its population
(or every third person) did not have citizenship of the country of residence. This inscribed
ethnic division into their society and although many Russians have become naturalized over the
last two decades, there are still more than 80,000 in Estonia without determined status who are
mostly former Soviet citizens and their descendants. In Latvia, segregation runs even deeper
where more than 250,000 Russians (15% of the population) remain stateless. Even when they do
become citizens, the parliaments have attempted to pass laws banning non-EU immigrants
(predominantly Russians) from possessing voting rights on several occasions. Polls also show
the prejudice within their societies, with many Balts indicating they would prefer their
Russian-speaking neighbors to repatriate.
Meanwhile, the Russian population has expressed concern about the reemergence of neo-Nazism.
The authorities have nurtured holocaust denial, such as the Latvian government objecting
to an UNESCO Holocaust exhibition of the Salaspils concentration camp on the basis it would
'tarnish the country's image.' No kidding.
Children held in Salaspils concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Latvia during WWII.
One criteria for the naturalization exams is based on language where in order to become
citizens Russians must become fluent in Latvian and Estonian, even though they are such a large
minority that in larger cities they often constitute 50% of the population and Russian may be
the most spoken language. Simultaneously, any attempt to make Russian a second official
language have been struck down. It is a deliberate effort to assimilate the Russian-speaking
minority and erase remnants of Soviet culture.
In order to obtain basic entitlements, Russians have to pass the tough naturalization tests
which many fail several times (especially the elderly), facing fines and risking losing their
employment in the process. The tests are notoriously difficult as Latvian and Estonian
languages bear little resemblance to Slavic Russian and are much closer to Finnish.
Apart from ethnicity, 40% of Latvia as a whole identifies as Russian-speaking and have been
accustomed to schooling in their native tongue where they already have low career prospects and
income rates. Rather than inclusion, they have been mandated to adopt the Baltic languages.
Beginning in 2019, the Russian language education options in Latvia will be discontinued
altogether in higher education at colleges and universities as well as many secondary schools,
which has sparked
demonstrations in protest .
Russian-speakers protesting Latvia's language reform laws
It should be made clear that what ethnic Russians experience in the Baltics has its own
particularities that make it significantly different from the institutionalized racism and
violently enforced segregation that existed in South Africa (or what many believe is applicable
to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation). The word apartheid itself originates from the
Afrikaans word for 'separateness' (or apart-hood), but an exact comparison is not the real
issue. There are many overlapping characteristics that make an analogy arguable.
For instance, the use of an ID system denoting ethnicity and alien status with the inability
of Russians to participate in the democratic process or politics. Their reduced standing
contributes to a society where ethnic groups often do not intermingle and are concentrated in
particular areas with Russians mostly residing in urban cities. Yet even Israel recognized
Arabic as a second official language (until 2018), while none of three Baltic states do so for
Russian. When referendums have been held on whether to adopt Russian as a second language, the
non-citizen communities are excluded from voting, ensuring its inability to pass.
The exams also coerce Russians to accept a nationalist and historically revisionist account
of the last century where the Soviet Union is said to have "occupied" the Baltics. A history
lesson is needed to understand how this is untrue and based on pure Nazi mythology. During the
Romanov dynasty, the Baltic states had been part of the Russian Empire but became independent
for the first time in centuries following the February Revolution in 1917.
Along with Belarus and Finland, the Bolsheviks were unable to regain the three republics
during the Russian Civil War. During the 1930s, the three nations were officially sovereign
states but under their own brutal nationalist regimes. The Soviet liberation of the Baltics can
hardly be seen as a 'forceful incorporation' considering what they replaced were not
democracies themselves and they were absorbed in order to block Hitlerite expansionism.
Since the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states have waged a
campaign of diminishing and obscuring the Holocaust into a 'double genocide' of equal
proportions , conflating the Nazis and the Soviets as twin evils. Western 'democracies' have
helped obfuscate the truth about the widely misunderstood Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the treaty
of non-belligerence between Germany and the USSR. The 1939 non-aggression pact has been painted
as a 'secret alliance' between the Nazis and the Soviets, disregarding that France and Great
Britain had done the same with the Germans the previous year with the Munich Agreement.
Only the Soviets are said to have 'conspired' with Hitler, just as when the West fought the
Germans it was for 'liberal values' but when the USSR did so it was for competing 'dominion'
over Europe. In order to mask their own fascist sympathies, the West has falsified the
historical reasons for the accord. In reality, there were measures incorporating the Baltic
states into the USSR as part of a mutual defense and assistance against German imperialism and
their 'master plan' for the East.
The truth is that the ruling class in the West feared the spread of communism much more than
fascism, and actually viewed the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe as an opportunity to
crush the Soviet Union. Leading up to WWII, not only was it Western capital investment which
financed the rapid buildup of Germany's armed forces, but the U.S., Britain and France did
everything within their power to encourage Hitler's aggression toward the USSR. More than once
they
collectively refused to sign any mutual security alliance with Moscow while appeasing
Hitler's expansionism in Czechoslovakia, with the British in particular guilty of sabotaging
negotiations to isolate the Soviets and pit them into a war against Germany.
Stalin was well aware the Nazis planned to expand the Lebensraum further East, but
the Soviets were in the midst of a rapid industrialization process that accomplished in a
single decade what took the British more than a century. They needed time to guarantee they
could defeat an offensive by the Wehrmacht, the most powerful and developed military force in
the world at the time. It provided an additional year and ten months of further buildup of
Soviet armaments -- if not for this move, it is possible the Germans would never
have been stopped twenty kilometers short of Moscow and turned the outcome of the war in their
favor. The real reason the pact infuriated the West was because it obligated them into having
to fight the Germans, something the imperial powers had hoped to avoid altogether.
More disturbingly, the Baltic governments have drawn from the traditions of the far right by
whitewashing the local nationalists that sided with Germany during their invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941 which broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Nazi collaborators have been
restored and normalized as 'freedom fighters' who fought solely for Baltic independence.
The Estonian parliament has even adopted resolutions
honoring the Estonian Legion and 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)
without any such equivalent measure for the more than 30,000 Estonians who courageously fought
in the Red Army.
To most Russians, it is an absolute insult to the 27 million Soviets who died defeating the
Nazis, including the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who did so as well. Today, if they
wish to become citizens they must swear an oath of allegiance to this rewriting of history
which has been made a precondition for obtaining citizenship. The three states also do not
recognize the May 9th Victory Day as a holiday, forcing the Russian minority to celebrate it
informally.
20th Estonian SS Division
The rehabilitation of the local nationalists who fought alongside the Germans has been done
under the false premise that the collaboration was a purely strategic alliance. The Soviets are
portrayed as equal to or worse than Nazi Germany, a false equivalency between fascism and
communism that is a ubiquitous trait among ultra-rightists today. Tens of thousands of Latvians
and Estonians volunteered and were conscripted into legions of the SS which participated in the
Holocaust, as did Lithuanians in the Nazi-created Territorial Defense Force and their Security
Police.
They did not simply coordinate on the battlefield with the Germans, but directly
participated in the methodical slaughter of Jews, Roma and others because they shared their
racism. In Lithuania, for example, quislings welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators and for the
next three years under Nazi occupation helped murder 200,000 Jews, nearly 95% of the country's
Jewish population, a total which exceeded every other European country in terms of percentage
of extermination. It is certain that the only thing that prevented Lithuania's Jews from
extinction was the heroism and sacrifice of the Red Army.
Latvians greeting the Red Army after the liberation of Riga
During the Cold War, the US and NATO sought to whitewash certain Nazi war criminals when it
suited its strategic interests against the Soviets. This went beyond the Germans themselves,
whether it was recruiting
their spies for espionage, atomic scientists in Operation Paperclip , or making Hans
Speidel the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Central Europe.
The Baltic Waffen SS Units are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose,
ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the
Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States
under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, as amended."
While the displaced persons laws let Jewish refugees into the United States, it also
provided cover for the reserved spaces for thousands of Nazi collaborators in an open-door
policy providing them safe harbor. Following the end of WWII, many of the former members of the
Baltic SS units became anti-Soviet partisans known as the Forest Brothers who carried on a
guerilla campaign against the Soviets with the assistance of the CIA and MI6 until it was
defeated in mid-50s. Unfortunately, Nikita Khruschev then made one of a series of colossal
mistakes by permitting the exiled Baltic nationals to return as part of the de-Stalinisation
thaw.
Latvian Legion
The idea that regiments of the Schutzstaffel were fighting purely for Estonian and Latvian
independence is a horrifying fabrication in defiance of the overwhelming evidence documented by
holocaust historians. The West has exploited this sanitizing of history that reappeared
following the reinstatement of free enterprise in eastern Europe which has proliferated the far
right in the EU as a whole. Why? It serves their cynical immediate interests in undermining
Moscow. The same manipulations are occurring in the Cold War's sequel. Last year, NATO even
produced a short film and a-historical reenactment entitled
Forest Brothers: Fight for the Baltics , glorifying the anti-Soviet partisans as part of
its propaganda effort against Russia.
Any crimes that were committed by the Soviet NKVD during the war are dwarfed by the tens of
thousands of Jews and Roma which were exterminated on an industrial level by the Nazis and
their co-conspirators using the race theory -- there is no comparison. Not to
mention that the reintroduction of the free market to Eastern Europe killed more people than
any period in Soviet history, reducing life expectancy by a decade and undoing seventy years
worth of progress. We only ever hear of the faults of socialism and the inflated numbers of
losses of life attributed to its failure, never the daily crimes of capitalism or the tens of
millions lost in the wars it produces.
he Soviet brand of socialism was far from perfect, but nevertheless a model for what
humanity can achieve in the face of tremendous adversity without being shackled by the
contradictions of capitalism -- an industrial society with relative equality in
education, wealth, employment and basic necessities. Now that Western capitalism is once again
collapsing, it is making friends with nationalists to revise its ugly history and the Russian
minority in the Baltics are suffering the consequence. It will continue to apportion blame on
the up-and-coming power in Moscow, no longer the quasi-colony of the Yeltsin era, for its
soon-to-be expiration. Let us hope it does not start another World War in the midst of
it -- for all our sake.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in
publications such as The Greanville Post, Global Research, CounterPunch and more. Read him on
Medium . Max may be reached at
[email protected]
I did not know about the vote in 1991. Thank you for exposing yet another example of US
meddling in elections, i.e. not recognizing the results and essentially forcing a coup via
Yeltsin. The war crimes of the US and Israel are beyond comprehension. Loading...
Yes, the Baltics, like the western Ukraine, rolled out the red carpet to the German invaders
in 1941. The Nazi genocide was outsourced from Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen to Baltic Nazis
since the numbers involved were too big to handle for the Germans alone.
The Arajs Kommando death squad (also: Sonderkommando Arajs), was led by local SS and
collaborators Viktors Arājs, Franz Stahlecker and Robert Stieglitz and a unit of Latvian
Auxiliary Police (Lettische Hilfspolizei) which was subordinated to the German
Sicherheitsdienst (a special security branch of the German SS). It was a notorious killing
unit during the Holocaust. Stahlecker instructed Arajs to set up a commando unit that
obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando.
The following day on July 2 1941 Arajs learned from Stahlecker during a conference that
the Arajs commando had to unleash a pogrom that looked spontaneous and these pogrom-like
disorders were to break out before German occupation authorities had been properly
established. The Einsatzkommando a sub-group of the SS death squads, belonging to the larger
Einsatzgruppen) influenced mobs of former members of Pērkonkrusts (Latvian
ultra-nationalists and other extreme right-wing groups) began mass arrests, pillaging and
murders of Jews in Riga, which led to death of between 300 to 400 Jews.
Killings continued under the supervision of SS Brigadeführer Walter Stahlecker and
ended when more 2,700 Jews had been murdered. The activities of the Einsatzkommando were
constrained after the full establishment of the German occupation authority, after which the
SS made use of select units of native recruits. German General Wilhelm Ullersperger and
Voldemar Weiss, a well known, Latvian nationalist, appealed to the population via a radio
address to attack "internal enemies".
During the next few months, activities of the Latvian Auxiliary Security Police was
primarily focused on killing Jews, Communists and Red Army stragglers in Latvia as well as in
neighbouring Belorussia. The group alone murdered almost half of Latvia's Jewish population,
about 26,000 Jews, mainly in November and December 1941. The creation of the Arajs Kommando
was "one of the most significant inventions of the early Holocaust", that marked a transition
from German organised pogroms to systematic killing of Jews by local volunteers (former army
officers, policemen, students, Aizargi).
This helped resolve a chronic problem with German personnel shortages, and provided the
Germans with relief from the psychological stress of routinely murdering civilians. By the
autumn of 1941, the SS deployed Latvian 'Police Battalions' to Leningrad, where they were
consolidated as Latvian Second SS Volunteer Brigade.
In 1943, this brigade, which would later become the Latvian Nineteenth SS Volunteer
Division, was consolidated with the Latvian Fifteen SS Volunteer Division to become the
Latvian Legion. Although formally the Latvian Legion (Schutzmannschaft or Schuma) was a
volunteer Waffen-SS military formation; it was voluntary only by name, because approximately
80-85% of personnel were conscripted into the legion.
Yes lovely people these Batlics. They are now among the poorest countries in Europe and
are suffering massive demographic problems as anyone who can, leaves. As my old mother used
to say. "God pays debts without money..
"
People of Russian heritage are denied passports, the right to vote, and any official
employment, amongst other forms of discrimination and persecution.
These are sh***y little Nazi countries, with their big annual SS parades. They desecrate war
memorials and the graves of Russian soldiers who died liberating the Baltic countries in the
war. Many Baltic politicians are US dual citizens, neocons parachuted in after 1991 by the
State Department. They are ideologically driven and lose no opportunity to vent their spleen
against Russia. They are constantly foolishly provocative towards a neighbour that could be a
valuable economic partner. We see the same pattern in Ukraine. The US pulled off a stunt
where 10,000 US troops in 1,000 tanks and vehicles drove up and down the Latvian border just
a few yards from Russian territory, through communities of predominantly Russian
heritage.
Part of this hostility to Russia is probably contrived by the political class to cover up
their abject failures since independence. Their economies were looted and hollowed out by
western finance capital over the past few decades. They were previously highly developed
parts of the Soviet Union with industries like machinery, vehicles and shipbuilding. That is
now ancient history. The economy has collapsed, and 25% of the population of Latvia has
emigrated, scratching a living doing menial jobs or working as prostitutes in the EU, the
only future those countries have. Riga was a natural transit hub for Russia, but faced with
official visceral hatred from that quarter, the Russians expanded and developed their own
port facilities in the Baltic. Riga has been left as a ghost town. That is why Nordstream has
been developed, to replace unreliable partners in neighbouring countries who are always ready
to cut off their noses to spite their face and please their US neocon masters. Their loss
– they could have made billions from energy transit fees. It's the same story with
sanctions, for which the Baltic states were enthusiastic cheerleaders. Russia's counter
sanctions against agricultural imports have hit them hard. In the course of events, these
countries and Russia would be economic partners for their mutual benefit.
As NATO members, these countries believe they can be as foolishly provocative and offensive
to Russia as they wish, like the obnoxious kid in the school playground who spits in
somebody's face and runs and hides behind his big brother. Small countries like this can
cause a disaster, like Serbia and WW1. They are now failed states, like Ukraine. They are
just pawns in a neocon game against Russia. They have no future. Loading...
'The Baltic republics made nationalism their official state policy while moving away from
Russia's sphere of influence into a closer relationship with the West.'
I strongly supported the Soviet Union and likewise I support the CIS, but this article,
frankly, is so partial that it misrepresents the reasons why the Baltic States behaved as
they did following the Nazi invasion of 1941 and following the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991.
There is no mention of Staln's takeover of the Baltic States in 1940. It is clear that
Stalin needed those states as a buffer against Germany, but that said, it is fully
understandable that many Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians would see the Nazis as
liberators and would resent their countries' reabsorption into the Soviet Union in 1944,
followed by settlement by Russian nationals including members of the Soviet state apparatus
including the KGB. Of course, we may all deplore collaboration with Nazi race policies,
especially in Lithuania, but to ignore factors such as Russia's takeover of the Baltic states
ignores a major factor at the heart of those countries' treatment of Russians to this
day.
The author explains Stalin's wish to forestall the inevitable war with Nazism because the
Soviet Union was involved in industrialisation. This is true, but the article ignores the
purges that had led to the Red Army being so ineffectual in its war with Finland that Hitler
believed that Barbarossa would be a pushover. When one considers that when the Baltic States
became part of the Soviet Union, this will have included the apparatus of state terror that
Stalin had been visiting upon the rest of the Soviet Union for several years. Contrary to the
above whitewashed view of history, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians had strong grounds for
resenting the presence of Russians in their erstwhile independent nations.
I deplore the Baltic States' treatment of ethnic Russians since they gained their
independence in September 1991, but ignoring the follies of their Soviet past will do nothing
to alleviate their plight.
I appreciate the historical background, but the treatment of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians
and Lithuanians by Stalin might explain their actions in WWII; doesn't excuse them, sorry.
Loading...
"erstwhile independent nations."
To be clear these former provinces-highly favoured provinces- in the Russian Empire had been
'independent' since 1921.And thanks in part too to the Bolshevik doctrine that the Czarist
Empire was a 'prison house of peoples.'
No doubt many in the Baltic states resented the invasion of the Red Army but it was only a
small minority which celebrated by killing Jews and enrolling in the siege of Leningrad.
In more modern terms there is no reason why these three states, and Ukraine, could not thrive
independently without setting themselves up as bases for provocations against Russia and
convenient locations for US torture chambers.
The people of Ireland suffered far more under the British Empire than the Balts did under St
Petersburg but that did not lead to more than a handful of Irishmen, if that many, in the
Second World War joining the SS. Loading...
This article takes no account of the threat posed to our allies in NATO, Eastern Europe, and
to the security of the world due to the rising tensions of recent years. Now, more than ever,
in the wake of Salisbury attack, we need to stress to our European counterparts in the
governments of the Baltic States, that we wish to work with them to maximise the power of
collective sanctions against violations of international law – whether by Russia or
anyone else. I think we should make clear that our UK commitment to such collective action
will not be diminished by Brexit. Similarly, now more than ever, it is vital that the UK and
all other NATO members make it clear to all our allies in the Baltic States, and elsewhere,
that we want to protect peace and security on the borders, without ramping up tensions
unnecessarily, and that such a commitment is not conditional on their levels of defence
spending.
Tory defence spending cuts have put Britain's security at risk.. I think the next Labour
government should commit to boost our military obligations, above the benchmark of 2% GDP, in
line with the last Labour government's commitment to NATO.
This is the second parody posted by BigB. A parody so skilful, such inane stringing together
of non-sequiturs to an insane c,nclusion, it might have come from the very lips of blessed
Theresa of Westminster. Loading...
Very close, Vex: St Jeremy of Islington North. Most of it is verbatim, with some reworded
conjunctions. The source text is from Hansard 26/03/18. The last para is a reword taken from
quote in John Pilger's excellent article about Labour's non-existent foreign policy which
would likely be imperialistic. Or the vague platitude of a return to 'Robin Cook ethical
diplomacy' of starting three wars in two years and selling Hawk aircraft to Mugabe.
It struck me recently when I point out the actual words that JC says, I take the flak. To
prove a point (if only to myself) I posted his own (disguised) words to see how people would
react. The source text for yesterday was his reply to Treason May, when she announced the two
counterfeit suspects for the fabricated Novijoke crime against the intelligence.
It is my supposition that very few know the full context of what is said, relying on media
soundbites instead. The media pick a single phrase – such as only saying "evidence
points strongly" – and contrast with Bojo's "weaselly words" to construct an entirely
inauthentic narrative. It is a pseudo-oppressor/oppressed narrative that creates a false
sense of pity and invokes an invented victim mentality (we all know how Brit's love an
underdog!).
Anyway, I surmised his words were weaselly, though not in the context of the received
culture machine narrative but in themselves, taken in their given context (in Parliament and
later in Hansard). They amount to a servile connivance with power (a power that provides the
testimony and meaning to the hollow phonemes).
I could have just said that, but I decided to post the slightly disguised text to make a
point. Point made.
Soviet "Communism" was de facto never more than a branch of Anglo-American bourgeois
progressivism. A geopolitical rivalry developed between the two factions after the defeat of
Germany. Note that Western capitalists built the Soviet industrial base in the 1920s and
1930s, so it was obvious they were not seen as a threat then:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm
( )
American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet
Union.
"Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with
United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In
the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to
more than 40." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp.
346-347).
The new program was announced, however, only "after a sequence of construction and
technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez
technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically
and technically the most important." (Ibid., p. 347).
EXTENT OF AID "ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE"
During the early thirties, the amount and type of "aid and comfort" to the Soviet Union was
almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car
industry by constructing a factory "capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year." By the end
of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided
training for the Russians in assembling automobiles "plus patent licenses, technical
assistance, and advice," and "an inventory of spare parts." (Keller, East Minus West Equals
Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and
steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex,
built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).
LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet
technology.
"Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed
and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works
were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American
football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The
tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no
arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and
copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to
the production of another less innocuous commodity – tanks." (Ibid., p. 213).
( )
Russia today is clearly not seen as a partner of Western
neoliberalism/progressivism. Therefore, Putin (along with Trump) has become the new
Hitler.
Curri, thank you for presenting that healthy corrective to my previous one-sided view; up
till now I had read only of US aid to Nazi Germany. Loading...
To put these observations into context it must be understood that the Soviet
government-obsessed with a crude mechanistic theory of economic development and desperately
trying to reproduce all of the 'stages' of economic progress into a succession of Five Year
Plans- bled the peasantry and working class dry in order to pay for what Curri calls a
partnership. The industrialists, largely Anglo Saxon, who jump started Russian industry after
the catastrophes of war and civil war extorted a heavy price, in hard currency, for their
'aid.'
The notion that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, was accepted as a partner by the west is
historically illiterate. The record is clear. And clarified further by the continuity in
Foreign Policy which was (and is) the Cold War. Loading...
200,000 Jews in Lithuania alone! And they give all this fuss over Corbyns reluctance to
conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
I knew there was prejudice in these northern Baltic states but this piece has shocked me. I
now understand the self deprecating remarks made to me recently by a supermarket cashier over
her being a Russian speaking Lithuanian. Next time I see her I will make a point of offering
her my solidarity.
I meet many of these northerners in my work. Now I have some of this background I can ask
pertinent questions. Loading...
It would be a mistake to discover the cause for this discrimination in popular prejudice. The
actual reason lies in the determination of the ruling class to maintain
fascist-collaborationist successor politicians in power.
These politicians, many of whom had origins in expatriate communities in the west, after
fleeing their homelands in the baggage of the Wehrmacht and SS, have been finding it very
difficult to survive after leading their countries into economic disaster mitigated only by
the welcome boost that NATO bases bring to countries in which unemployment rates are at
levels not seen since the 1930s.
Like their predecessors they have turned to racism and fascism to prop themselves up.
What is true of the Baltic states is even truer of Ukraine, where Russian speakers constitute
a persecuted majority, and where the Speaker of the Rada is on record, this past week, as
being inspired by the Fuhrer who he sees as the greatest democrat of the C20th.
As racism and fascism spread westwards into Austria, Germany and elsewhere the complacence of
western 'liberals' in cosseting and subsidising the sources of infection is largely to blame.
It is of course history repeating itself: the fascism of eastern europe in the 1930s was also
sponsored and armed by the 'democracies' of the west. And for the same reason: to keep Russia
at bay.
Whoever it was, this "gutless" person seems pretty craven, opportunistic neocon of McCain
flavor. Most neocons are chickenhawks. And there are plenty of neocons in Trump
administration.
It might well be that anonymous "resistance" op-ed in NYT is CIA operation to promote Woodward's book ( Woodward is definitely
connected to CIA from the time of Nixon impeachment)
Notable quotes:
"... You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions ..."
During an interview with Fox and Friends, conducted onstage prior to Trump's rally and set
to air on Friday, the president called the paper's decision to publish the column "very
unfair".
"When somebody writes and you can't discredit because you have no idea who they are,"
Trump said. "It may not be a Republican, it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state
person that's been there a long time.
It's a very unfair thing, but it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of
people that voted really for us."
Since the editorial was published, the highest-ranking officials in Trump's administration
have come forth to
publicly deny any involvement. Those distancing themselves from the column have included
the vice-president, Mike Pence, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with much of
Trump's cabinet. The first lady, Melania Trump, also condemned the author and called on the
individual to come forward.
"You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions," she
wrote.
The editorial was published as the White House was contending with yet another
firestorm.
A book authored by the famed journalist
Bob Woodward , poised for release next week, chronicles the chaos and dysfunction within
the Trump administration.
Excerpts released on Tuesday provided an unflattering portrait of the
president, who was described by aides in disparaging terms that included being likened to a
schoolchild.
uke Harding likes writing books
about things that he wasn't really involved in and doesn't really understand. Unfortunately for
the rest of the world, that covers pretty much everything. His book about Snowden, for example,
was beautifully
taken down by Julian Assange – a person who was actually there.
He's priming the traumatised public for another of his works, this time about Sergei
Skripal. This one will probably be out by Christmas, unless he can find someone else's work to plagiarise , in which case he might
get it done sooner.
It will have a snide and not especially clever title, perhaps a sort of pun –
something like "A Poison by Any Other Name: How Russian assassins contaminated the heart of
rural England" . It will relate, in jarring sub-sub-le Carre prose, a story of Russian
malfeasance and evil beyond imagining, whilst depicting the whole cast as bumbling caricatures,
always held up for ridicule by the author and his smug readership.
There's an extract in The Guardian today. It's not listed as one, but trust me, it
will be in the book. It's title, as predicted above, is sort of a pun (and will probably
be a chapter heading):
Planes, trains and fake names: the trail left by Skripal suspects
You see? Like that film? I don't really get it either but until someone else comes up with
something clever he can copy, Luke is left to his own rather meagre devices.
It starts off surprisingly strong, waiting three whole sentences before lurching violently
into totally unsupported conjecture:
The two men were dressed inconspicuously in jeans, fleece jackets and trainers as they
boarded the flight from Moscow to Gatwick. Their names, according to their Russian passports,
were Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Both were around 40 years old. Neither looked
suspicious.
This is, as far as we know so far, true.
The plane trundled down the icy runway. In Moscow the temperatures had fallen below -10C,
not unusual for early March. In Britain it had been snowing.
and so is this. In fact, in googling "Moscow weather March 2018" Harding has displayed an
uncharacteristically thorough approach to research that was rarely (if ever) evidenced in his
previous works.
They had also packed a bottle of what appeared to be the Nina Ricci perfume Premier Jour.
The box it came in was prettily decorated with flowers, it listed ingredients including
alcohol and it bore the words "Made in France".
This is where truth ends and guesses take over: there is no evidence, at all, that these two
men had anything to do with the "perfume bottle" allegedly found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th
and allegedly containing a powerful nerve agent. There is (as far as we know) no fingerprint or
DNA evidence on the bottle, nobody saw them with the bottle, and there's no released CCTV
footage of them holding or carrying the bottle. Saying "it's in their backpack" is meaningless
without any evidence to back it up.
According to the Metropolitan police, the bottle in fact contained novichok, a lethal
nerve agent developed in the late Soviet Union. The bottle had been specially made to be
leakproof and had a customised applicator.
Note he doesn't feel the need to examine, question or even verify the words of the
Metropolitan Police. This is a recurring theme in Harding's works – there are people who
tell the truth (US) and people who lie (RUSSIANS). Evidence is a complication you can live
without.
Moscow's notorious poisons factory run by the KGB made similar devices throughout the cold
war.
Did they? Because he doesn't show any evidence this is true. One thing you can be sure of,
if there had ever been even a whisper about a "modified perfume bottle" in any Soviet archive
or from any "whistleblower currently living in the United States", it would be on the front
page in big black letters.
Petrov and Boshirov were aliases, detectives believe. Both men are suspected to be career
officers with the GRU, Russia's powerful and highly secretive military intelligence
service.
Note use of the word "believe", it makes regular appearances alongside it's buddies:
"suspect" and "probably".
And yes, they "believe" they are aliases because IF they were assassins then obviously they
used aliases. There's no evidence taken from their (currently totally theoretical) visa
applications that point to forgery, nobody at the time questioned their passports. As of today,
we have been given no reason to think they were aliases, except reasoning backwards from
assumed guilt which isn't how deduction works.
In fact, there's more than enough reason to assume they aren't aliases –
Firstly, they passed the visa check, secondly their passports were never questioned, thirdly
they've used them before (see below), and finally just WHY would a Russian spy-come-assassin
use a fake Russian name and a fake Russian passport? That's ridiculous.
The officers' assignment was covert. They were coming to Britain not as tourists but as
assassins.
[citation needed]
Their target was Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who spied for British intelligence,
got caught and was freed in a spy exchange in 2010. They were heading for his home in
provincial Salisbury.
Luke doesn't feel the need to dig down into the nitty gritty here – motive is a
trifle, to be added in the footnotes or made up on the spur of the moment when asked at a book
signing. I'm a bit more fussy than that – I feel the need to ask "Why did they release
him in 2010 and then try to kill him in 2018?" If they had wanted to kill him, why not just do
it when he was in prison in Russia between 2006 and 2010? If they wanted to kill him why do it
just weeks before the World Cup? What could they possibly have to gain?
Luke doesn't know, and neither do I.
Their Aeroflot flight SU2588 touched down at 3pm on Friday 2 March. They were recorded on
CCTV going through passport control, Boshirov with dark hair and a goatee beard, Petrov
unshaven and wearing a blue gingham shirt. Both were carrying satchels slung casually over
the shoulder.
This is all true, and completely unnecessary. It's what we in the industry call "filler" or
"padding". Totally meaningless and useless words that do nothing but take up space. Without it,
a lot of Luke's books would only be about 700 words long.
According to police, the pair had visited the UK before.
Way to bury the lead there, Luke.
This is actually quite important isn't it? I mean, when did they visit the UK before? Did
they visit Salisbury then too? Did they have any contact with Sergei Skripal? Were they
travelling under the same names? Were these visits linked with other intelligence work? Were
they just holidays? What kind of assassins would use the SAME FAKE IDS ON TWO DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS?
These are all very important questions, but Luke doesn't ask them. Because Luke is a modern
journalist, and they don't interrogate the claims of the state, just report them. To
Guardian reporters a question mark is just that funny squiggle next to the shift
key.
From Gatwick they caught the train to London Victoria station and then the tube to east
London, where they checked in to the City Stay hotel in Bow. It was a low-profile choice of
accommodation. The red-brick Victorian building is next to a branch of Barclays bank, a busy
train line and a wall daubed with graffiti. Across the road is a car pound and a Texaco
garage.
This just more filler. Totally meaningless packaging material. The prose equivalent of
All-Bran.
On hostile territory, Boshirov and Petrov operated in the manner of classic intelligence
operatives.
In this instance "the manner of classic intelligence operatives" means, flying direct to
London from Moscow, using Russian names and Russian passports (which you've used before),
checking into a hotel with a CCTV camera on the front door, going straight to the hometown of
an ex-double agent, leaving a Russian poison his front door even though he's already gone out,
dumping your unused poison in a charity bin on the high street, going back to your hotel,
smearing poison around that too even though you already dumped it, and then flying directly
back to Moscow without even waiting to see if the plan worked and the target is dead.
This, in Luke's head, is ace intelligence work.
On the day of the hit, according to detectives, the pair made a similar journey, taking
the 8.05am train from Waterloo to Salisbury and arriving at 11.48am.
Yes, they arrived at 11.48, making it absolutely pointless to put poison on the Skripal's
door, as they had already gone out.
The perfume bottle was probably concealed in a light grey backpack carried by Petrov.
It was "probably concealed" in that backpack because, as I said above, there's no evidence
either of those men ever knew the perfume bottle existed. You never see it in their
possession.
Oh, and the backpack would have to contain TWO bottles of perfume – because the police
aren't sure the bottle Rowley found 3 months later was the same bottle, and Rowley reported it
was unopened and wrapped in cellophane. Perhaps Luke should have read the details of the case
instead of trolling IMDB looking for movie titles with "plane" in them or googling "insouciant"
to see if he was using it right.
From Salisbury station the two men set off on foot. It was a short walk of about a mile to
Skripal's semi-detached home in Christie Miller Road.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
At Skripal's house the Russians smeared or sprayed novichok on to the front door handle,
police say.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
It doesn't matter if Borishov and Petrov re-tiled the bathroom with novichok grouting or hid
novichok in the battery compartment of Sergei's TV remote or replaced all his lightbulbs with
novichok bombs that explode when you use the clapper .according to everything we've been told
so far Sergei and Julia were literally never in that house again.
Luke seems to write a lot about this case, considering he is barely acquainted with the most
basic facts of it.
The moment went unobserved
True. There is not a single piece of footage, photograph or eyewitness placing these men
within a hundred feet of the Skripals, or their house. The "moment went unobserved" is an
incredibly dishonest way of phrasing this, "the moment is entirely theoretical" is rather
fairer. Or, if you want to be honest "it's possible none of this happened".
At some point on their walk back they must have tossed away the bottle, which at this
point was too dangerous to try to smuggle back through customs.
It's all falling into place perfectly isn't it?
At some point the two men, who we never see holding or carrying the bottle, must have
thrown it away because three months later someone else found it.
They took it through customs once but couldn't a second time, because reasons.
Also one of them was smiling a sort of "I just poisoned somebody" smile:
At 1.05pm the men were recorded in Fisherton Street on their way back to the station. They
appeared more relaxed, Petrov grinning even.
Those evil bastards.
By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench
in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.
No Luke: By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a
park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the ALLEGED poisoners were
gone.
Alleged is an important word for example, there is a marked difference between being an
ALLEGED plagiarist, and being a
plagiarist .
The visitors were captured on CCTV one more time, at Heathrow airport. It was 7.28pm and
both men were going through security, Petrov first, wheeling a small black case. In his right
hand was a shiny red object, his Russian passport. Police believe the passport was genuine,
his name not. In other words, that it was a sophisticated espionage operation carried out by
a state or state entities.
You see? Nobody thought the passport was fake, which means it was a really good fake
. So the Russian state must have been in on it. This is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
If the passport did look fake, that would be evidence that the men were spies and
therefore the Russian state was in on it.
Harding has created a narrative where there is literally no development that could ever
challenge his conclusions.
Seemingly, the GRU plan – executed two weeks before Russia's presidential election
– had worked perfectly.
This is an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy – two things
happen at the same time, therefore they happen for the same reason. It's a maneuver we at OffG
refer to as "the Harding", where you state two separate assertions or facts one after the other
in such a way as to imply a relationship, without ever making a solid statement. I'll give you
an example:
Luke Harding was born in 1968, mere weeks before the brutal assassination of Robert
Kennedy.
Harding is suggesting some sort of connection between the election and the poisoning. He
can't STATE it, because then he has to explain his reasoning – and there isn't any.
Putin, and Russia as a whole, had nothing to gain from poisoning an ex-spy they had released
nearly a decade earlier, especially on the eve of a Presidential election and mere weeks before
the World Cup. There's no argument to be made, so he doesn't attempt to make one, he just makes
a snide and baseless insinuation.
Vladimir Putin, the man whom a public inquiry found in 2016 had "probably" signed off on
the operation to kill Litvinenko. The UK security services say a "body of evidence" points to
the GRU.
"Probably" is also a big word. For example, there's a marked difference between "probably
being a plagiarist" and "being a
plagiarist" .
It seems clear that Moscow continues to view Britain as a playground for undercover
operations and is relatively insouciant about the consequences, diplomatic and political. The
Skripal attack may have misfired. But the message, mingling contempt and arrogance, is there
for all to see: we can smite our enemies whenever and wherever we want, and there is nothing
you can do about it.
This is the second time Luke has used the word "insouciant" in two days, which means that
word of the day
calendar was a probably sound investment, but he forgot to flip it over this morning.
Other than that, this final paragraph is nothing but paranoia.
The Russians were TRYING to make it obvious, to send a message. But were also lazy and
arrogant. And yet also left no solid evidence because they are experts at espionage. They had
no motive except being mean, and couldn't even be bothered to make sure they did it right. They
want us all to know they did it, but will never admit it.
The actual truth of the situation can be summed up in a few bullet points.
Currently:
There is no evidence these men were using forged documents. There is no evidence
these men were travelling under aliases or assumed names. There is no evidence these men ever
had any contact with Sergei Skripal's house. There is no evidence these men ever had any
contact with Sergei Skripal or his daughter. There is no evidence these men were Russian
intelligence assets or had any military training. There is no evidence these men ever possessed
or had any contact with the perfume bottle found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th. They have
visited the UK before, not on intelligence business (as far as we know). Their movements don't
align with the timeline of Skripal's illness.
The entire narrative is created around half a dozen screen caps of two (allegedly) Russian
men, not behaving in any way illegally or even suspiciously. All the rest is fiction, created
by a hack to service an agenda. This isn't one of those "You couldn't make it up" stories, it's
not that incredible. It's just insulting and stupid.
Theresa May demonstrated traits of a psychopath who cling to power using all available to her
means, including criminal. Looks like British version of Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... despite hysterical news broadcasts and front-page headlines regarding "Russian assassins," the public know nothing more substantively about the events of Sunday, March 4, than they did more than six months ago. ..."
"... May did not detail the intelligence she was supposedly acting on. Instead she singled out Russia as the main enemy of the West that had to confronted, declaring, "This chemical weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world." ..."
"... "Back in March, Russia sought to sow doubt and uncertainty about the evidence we presented to this House -- and some were minded to believe them," May told parliament. "Today's announcement shows that we were right." Except that it doesn't. The new narrative is that "Petrov" and "Boshirov" flew into Gatwick airport on Friday, March 2. CCTV footage purportedly verifies this. They checked into a budget hotel in Bow, east London, and the next day, according to police, travelled to Salisbury, staying in the area for several hours, before returning to London. ..."
"... The pair then returned to Salisbury on Sunday, March 4. Police claim they are shown on CCTV at 11:58 a.m., on Wilton Road, "moments before the attack" on Sergei Skripal. ..."
"... Former UK ambassador Craig Murray asked: "1. Why did two alleged GRU agents travel under false names and fake passports, but still use Russian ..."
"... Murray retweeted a statement from a freelance journalist, Neil Clark, pointing out: "If the two men were identified coming through Gatwick, it is impossible that the police do not know what kind of visa they were travelling on. Something is very wrong here -- ties in with the fact that the photos released [showing grainy images of the men's faces on dark backgrounds] are not UK visa standard photos." ..."
"... at precisely the same second ..."
"... Murray points out that the Skripals left their home at 9:15 a.m. on March 4 and were assumed not to have returned home, before they were found collapsed. "But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the earliest." ..."
"... An article on the Off Guardian website noted that the police said the Bow Hotel was "contaminated" with novichok, but no one has been reported ill in six months at the hotel. ..."
"... The government's narrative cannot be taken at face value, especially as it is supplied by the same security services that faked "evidence" of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq. ..."
"... Moreover, the timing of the government's latest disclosure is highly suspect. Yesterday, the UK raised its new allegations against Moscow at the United Nations Security Council, after which the US, France, Germany and Canada issued a joint statement that the Russian government "almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals. ..."
"... The same day the European Union announced it was extending, for a further six months, the sanctions it had imposed on around 150 Russian individuals and 50 companies following the right-wing Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Complaints of Russian aggression in Crimea have been used to carry through a massive NATO build-up on Russia's borders. ..."
"... These measures unfold as the US renews threats over the operation by forces loyal to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad against Al Qaeda affiliates that control the northwestern province of Idlib. Denouncing the "threat of an imminent Assad regime attack, backed by Russia and Iran," the White House stated that, in the event of a chemical weapons attack, "the United States and its Allies will respond swiftly and appropriately." ..."
The UK government and media have doubled down on their anti-Russian campaign following
Wednesday's announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that two men have been named as
suspects in the poisoning of former Russian/British double agent Sergei Skripal and his
daughter, Yulia.
The police released passport photos and CCTV images of two men in various locations,
including Gatwick Airport and Salisbury. But despite hysterical news broadcasts and
front-page headlines regarding "Russian assassins," the public know nothing more substantively
about the events of Sunday, March 4, than they did more than six months ago.
CPS Director of Legal Services Sue Hemming said that evidence from counter-terrorism police
meant "it is clearly in the public interest to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who
are Russian nationals," with the attempted murder of Sergei, Yulia and police officer Nick
Bailey.
Prime Minister Theresa May then told parliament that, in addition to the police
investigation, the security and intelligence agencies had conducted their own investigation
and, "based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals
named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also
known as the GRU."
She added: "So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside
the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has categorically rejected the UK's claims, stating the names
of the two men "do not mean anything to us."
May did not detail the intelligence she was supposedly acting on. Instead she singled
out Russia as the main enemy of the West that had to confronted, declaring, "This chemical
weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently
seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world."
"Back in March, Russia sought to sow doubt and uncertainty about the evidence we
presented to this House -- and some were minded to believe them," May told parliament. "Today's
announcement shows that we were right." Except that it doesn't. The new narrative is that
"Petrov" and "Boshirov" flew into Gatwick airport on Friday, March 2. CCTV footage purportedly
verifies this. They checked into a budget hotel in Bow, east London, and the next day,
according to police, travelled to Salisbury, staying in the area for several hours, before
returning to London.
The pair then returned to Salisbury on Sunday, March 4. Police claim they are shown on
CCTV at 11:58 a.m., on Wilton Road, "moments before the attack" on Sergei Skripal.
The police say two more images show the "suspects at Salisbury train station at 13.50 on
Sunday, 4 March, as they embark on their journey back to London." Another image shows the
"suspects passing through passport control at London Heathrow at 19.28 on Sunday evening (4
March) -- in the image, 'Petrov' is at the front and 'Boshirov' at the back."
May's definitive assertion of Russian authorship was contradicted by Assistant Commissioner
Neil Basu, National Lead for Counter-Terrorism Policing. Asked by the press if he had any
evidence that the two men were Russian State operatives, he said, "No." Basu said in his
statement that "it is likely that they were travelling under aliases and that these are not
their real names."
BBC Security Correspondent Gordon Corera reported that he understood the authorities
identified the pair "a while back" and "may also know their real names." But if so, why are
they not being made public?
Former UK ambassador Craig Murray asked: "1. Why did two alleged GRU agents travel under
false names and fake passports, but still use Russian names and Russian
passports? If they had used EU passports -- say from Lithuania or Estonia for example -- they
wouldn't have needed a visa, thanks to EU freedom of movement agreements, and could still have
spoken Russian without raising suspicion."
Murray retweeted a statement from a freelance journalist, Neil Clark, pointing out: "If
the two men were identified coming through Gatwick, it is impossible that the police do not
know what kind of visa they were travelling on. Something is very wrong here -- ties in with
the fact that the photos released [showing grainy images of the men's faces on dark
backgrounds] are not UK visa standard photos."
Among the glaring oddities in the new account is that the two photos released of "Petrov"
and "Boshirov" shows them both in what appears to be the same space at Gatwick airport at
precisely the same second (16:22:43 on March 2, 2018.) Raising the physically
impossibility, Murray suggests the CCTV images may have been
doctored . The police are now claiming that the two are in different but similar places
passing CCTV cameras at exactly the same time.
The government's latest narrative fails to correspond with claims it has maintained for
months that the Skripals were poisoned by "novichok" being applied to the front door knob of
Sergei's house.
Murray points out that the Skripals left their home at 9:15 a.m. on March 4 and were
assumed not to have returned home, before they were found collapsed. "But the Metropolitan
Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the
poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob
before noon at the earliest."
An article on the Off Guardian website noted that the police said the Bow Hotel was
"contaminated" with novichok, but no one has been reported ill in six months at the hotel.
Moreover, to contaminate the room "the suspects would have to physically apply the poison to
it, and since they allegedly left [sic] country on March 4th -- the same day as the alleged
attack -- the contamination must have happened BEFORE Sergei Skripal was poisoned."
Also, previously the Metropolitan Police said that it was connecting the poisoning of the
Skripals with that of Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charley Rowley. Dawn died in hospital after
being exposed to what was described as a novichok on July 8. Rowley is now seriously ill with
reported meningitis.
Yet Basu commented, "We don't yet know where the suspects disposed of the Novichok they used
to attack the door, where Dawn and Charlie got the bottle that poisoned them, or if it is the
same bottle used in both poisonings."
The government's narrative cannot be taken at face value, especially as it is supplied
by the same security services that faked "evidence" of Iraq having "weapons of mass
destruction" to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq.
Moreover, the timing of the government's latest disclosure is highly suspect. Yesterday,
the UK raised its new allegations against Moscow at the United Nations Security Council, after
which the US, France, Germany and Canada issued a joint statement that the Russian government
"almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals.
The same day the European Union announced it was extending, for a further six months,
the sanctions it had imposed on around 150 Russian individuals and 50 companies following the
right-wing Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Complaints of Russian aggression in Crimea
have been used to carry through a massive NATO build-up on Russia's borders.
May wants the EU to go further and follow the US, which imposed additional sanctions from
August 27 on the basis that Russia had used "chemical weapons in violation of international law
or lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals." This include terminating aid, except on
urgent humanitarian grounds, restricting access to US credit, ending aspects of financing and
prohibiting exports to Russia of "restricted goods or technology." Russia has 90 days to allow
inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to verify it
does not have chemical weapons, or Washington will impose a far more severe set of
sanctions.
These measures unfold as the US renews threats over the operation by forces loyal to the
Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad against Al Qaeda affiliates that control the
northwestern province of Idlib. Denouncing the "threat of an imminent Assad regime attack,
backed by Russia and Iran," the White House stated that, in the event of a chemical weapons
attack, "the United States and its Allies will respond swiftly and appropriately."
Washington and London are not responding out of humanitarian concerns. They have backed the
Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups in Syria as part of their regime-change operations in the
Middle East, and broader geostrategic objectives against Russia and Iran. As in previous
instances -- Douma in April for example -- Washington's threats amount to an invitation to the
Al Qaeda forces to stage an incident to justify military intervention by the US and its
allies.
On the one hand, the ruling class want us to believe that Russian operations are highly
sophisticated, that we should all live in suspense of when the next incident will occur, that
we should hunger for vengeance, and yet when the media and government provide their
"evidence" it shows that the so-called Russian operatives are incredibly inept. Of course,
what else could be expected from manufactured narratives.
The British ruling class and it's security forces are cold blooded killers for hundreds of
years. There is nothing too savage below them. Nothing they say can be taken at face value.
This whole affair has been a set up from the beginning. As we see know, it is used once
again when needed. Russia is about to make a final push in Syria. This means, if they are
victorious, America and Britain will have been stopped in the Middle East.
England has nothing left to lose. Nothing is off the table for their survival.
Jsut to assume tat two secret agents sent on an assassination plot from the Russian
government would leave such obvious traces is absurd. Using Russian passports, needing a visa
to enter, flying from Russia direct to London and then back... The British want us to think
that the Russian secret service does not know about all the CCTV cameras in London, or
England in general. Or the advanced level of security at Gatwick.
Anti-NATO Russians joke about this "new proof", I have read a funny short poem about it, and
my favorite joke was - looks like there is not even Lestrade in Scotland Yard anymore.
What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest
book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've
taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.
In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy
boss a degree of righteous indignation.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the
attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at
once!"
Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if
you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.
But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the
point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are
fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your
lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.
This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest
book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk.
... ... ...
Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally
reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called
"Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny
calling the president an idiot.
Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon
muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.
Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely
pretending to be doing the opposite.
Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th
amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality
TV.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into
the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the
president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least
conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are
inoperative at this point.
Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the
obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let
the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good
thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".
This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some
of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.
But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.
It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to
help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running
the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author
when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose
him. Maybe he planned it that way.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's
White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each
other.
Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by
constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White
House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All
these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led
by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and
could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial
team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his
presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the
glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has
started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the
regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if
abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch
of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own;
indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition
partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what
was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The
dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of
1928 - five years into his government.
Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but
generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a
transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then
installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave
office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't
know until after he is gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back
- we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with
excellent reasons to protect their sources.
"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the
president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.
"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in
court.
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is
prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story.
Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them
to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote
them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the
world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid
to go looking elsewhere.
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York
Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground
parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be
Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and
whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he
or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the
Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation,
ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem
prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and
resigning publicly.
Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.
Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk
and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The
responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly
shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare
not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on
"minor" non work related items.
"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences
however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will
get found out in a week.
Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.
The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US.
That is madness.
to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.
No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look
elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns
over them.
Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they
come
from. That's part of their role.
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous.
These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID
THAT and we're left to believe whom?
If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like
anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera,
throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I
question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are
their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't
believe it.
I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by
calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is
working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off
(and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his
election.
Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely
understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one
would think she had the measure of the man long ago.
More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any
Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the
Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT
turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.
The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to
actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.
I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's
advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been
against Trump from January 2017 at all.
Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate
for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who
conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his
unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no
organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's
some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always
fluffy kittens on YouTube.
The plot now turned into smuggling operation run by older Skripal, possibly with some participation of this daughter.
There were similar hypothesis about Litvinenko death -- that he was involved n polonium smuggling operation.
The behaviour of two people involved is unprofessional -- they took public transport so they were strictly bounded by train
schedule. But that's logical if they were mules -- used for smuggling some substance to GB.
Notable quotes:
"... As with the fraudulent "Mueller investigation" in the US, despite the united efforts of government officials and a colluding, servile mass-media insisting that there's a (sinister Russian) "there" there, I foolishly thought that the overall absence of actual evidence, or even a plausible rationale connecting the dubious dots, was an overreach that would rapidly reach a fatal point of diminishing returns. ..."
"... But I underestimated the staying power of Big Lies, and the Big Liars who tell them ..."
"... Another oddity, the hotel the men stayed at, which was supposedly contaminated by Novichok as discovered on May the 4th - I did a news search for this hotel for the period March - September 4th and couldn't find a single reference to it being cordoned off or investigated by the police. Did they let people continue to use the hotel without telling them it could be contaminated? ..."
"... EVERYONE knows it's all BS. BUT, everyone talking about it gives it traction. I find this no different than the USA scoundrels worried about Syrian citizens in Idlib. ..."
"... The most worrying angle, as far as I am concerned, is the utter unbelievability of these stories. Exactly in line with 9/11 (three buildings knocked down by two planes), the Boston Marathon bombing, countless supposed multiple murders in the USA that do not seem to have taken place as officially described, MH17, and the Syrian "chemical weapons" attacks. ..."
"... So we had Bolton clearly stating in the media time and time again --- if chemical weapons are found in Idlib it would be a game changer to US policy in Syria, thus prompting those desperate cornered brutal rebels, offering a last way out of there situation. Now we have the prime minister. UK giving a statement about new evidence re Salisbury, chemical Russia. I would put a weeks wage on there being a chemical attack in Syria Idlib enytime now ! This is the UK prime minster aiding a massive brutal crime. ..."
"... It is obvious this whole novichok thing is a false flag op. The only question is why did the UK government did this. ..."
"... UK agencies have a long track record back to before WW2 running operations to get the US into a war. Their recent false flag operations inside the UK are to soften up the US/UK public in advance of the UK managed chemical weapon false flag attack in Syria they are clearly threatening in advance. ..."
"... There are times of the day when 2 passengers could arrive at an empty passport control, enter two different tunnels at the same time and arrive at exactly the same second at equivalent gates. Not many times, because it means that there is no queue at either tunnel. And 16:22 is not one of these times. ..."
"... You think that two members of a highly trained hit squad are going to walk through Heathrow together? You've got to be dreaming. Have you no concept of Operational Security? Dear oh dear... ..."
"... Historian and political analyst Vladimir Kornilov wrote an article for RIA Novosti comparing the famous 1924 SIS forgery, "Zinoviev letter", to the ongoing Skripal affair: https://ria.ru/analytics/20180905/1527822792.html ( machine translation ; the translation is good, except that "the Violins" should read as "the Skripals"). ..."
"... And with all due respect to b I don't think the airport pictures prove much. Who were these two? Why did they go to Salisbury? It looks too sloppy to be GRU. Russian Mafia contract killers is my guess. Unless the whole story is an elaborate MI6 concoction and all the CCTV photos are fake. ..."
"... A beautiful story, this Skripal affair...designed and timed to draw the public into emotional judgments, against reason and logic, immediately prior to the Russian pummeling of jihadi scum. One wonders what sort of blowback arises from such psychological conditioning. Hmmm... ..."
"... As I wrote before, the case reeks of planted evidence. A normal logic of investigation would be to inspect "probable leads" ASAP, and to perform tests ASAP. Instead, the famous door knob was tested with one month delay, and the hotel room, with two month delay. But planting evidence in an improvised mode requires planning and debates how to do it. The logistics of planting evidence are the most plausible explanation why it was done at the place where Skripals lived rather than close to the place where they together lost consciousness. Planting evidence in the hotel is simplicity itself, because it is very easy to do it in a secret lab. ..."
"... Two men (traveling together on Russian passports) are seen leaving a flight from Moscow and (in the most heavily CCTV monitored country in the world), immediately take public transport directly to and from the scene of the crime. ..."
"... Its very hard to imagine that any intelligence agency would be so sloppy as to use their own nationals, own passports, travel together, take direct flights from their own capital, use public transport, make no effort to avoid CCTV, casually dispose of vital evidence where it was certain to be found (a deadly poison left in a brandname perfume box at a charity donation bin? someone was going to open it eventually), etc. There are many more flaws but there are also more significant questions. ..."
"... Is there any strong reason to believe that US or UK intelligence were less likely to poison Skripal than Russia? Did he perhaps have evidence regarding the Steele Dossier they wanted to silence? If so, is there any reason we should not suspect the men in the picture of working for non-Russian intelligence who are deliberately trying to point the finger of blame at Russia? ..."
"... Personally, I think relity is much more mundane: the UK, given its objective reality post-Brexit, simply decided to (re)synchronize (update) its geopolitical position with the USA's. When the USA decided to jump into the madness of Russophobia after Trump's victory, the UK simply had to jump after because it is so dependent on the Americans they kinda didn't have a choice. ..."
"... They need something to try to put pressure on Russia. What tools do they have? "Skripal case", "Russian meddling in elections" (aka "Russian hackers"), "Russian doping", situation in Donbass, illegal detentions/abductions of Russian citizens (Ukraine did it with Kirill Vyshinsky in May, the US did it with Maria Butina recently etc.), cheap provocations with chemical weapons in Syria to accuse Assad/Russia. ..."
"... I would pick three directions - the "Skripal case", fake "chemical attacks" in Syria and deliberate aggravation of the situation in Donbass (terrorist act against DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko is just the beginning) are, apparently (in their opinion), the most effective measures to influence Russia to change its policy in Syria. These tools will be used. Simultaneously, or in a particular order. ..."
"... The key proposition that the police are asserting is that the Skripals were poisoned by 'delayed reaction'. The alleged suspects were out of Salisbury 3 hours before the Skripals exhibited signs of poisoning, nerve agents, however, act immediately. If the 'door handle theory' is not physically possible, which it is not, then that leaves out the assassin hypothesis. Most likely, as I have always said, is that this is about Sergei's skulduggery, he took delivery of the agent from these guys for eventual passing over to the White Helmets via their MI6 handlers. All went pear shaped because of a leaky bottle. Sergei realised something was wrong so hurried his meal so he could check it out, reached the park bench with Julia and the saw that the bottle was leaking and began to feel ill, Julia through the thing away and went down herself. ..."
Some commenters there who claim to be familiar with the airport have already noted that
the men were surely exiting from parallel walkways ("channels"), and/or that the CCTV clock
was simply malfunctioning.
Even if both claims are true, it doesn't explain away the remarkable congruence between
the men's supposedly separate and independent progress through the walkways. Again, some
commenters who purport to be personally familiar with the location assert that there are
visible differences in the "two" walkways shown in the photos-- but to me they look
identical.
This is still another dodgy, ambiguous piece of "evidence" to prop up the ongoing Big Lie.
In the weeks following the Skripal event, the UK officials began making such ludicrous and
incredible assertions that I naïvely expected that their colossal deceit would blow up
in their faces sooner than later.
As with the fraudulent "Mueller investigation" in the US, despite the united efforts of
government officials and a colluding, servile mass-media insisting that there's a (sinister
Russian) "there" there, I foolishly thought that the overall absence of actual evidence, or
even a plausible rationale connecting the dubious dots, was an overreach that would rapidly
reach a fatal point of diminishing returns.
But I underestimated the staying power of Big Lies, and the Big Liars who tell them.
Another oddity, the hotel the men stayed at, which was supposedly contaminated by Novichok as
discovered on May the 4th - I did a news search for this hotel for the period March -
September 4th and couldn't find a single reference to it being cordoned off or investigated
by the police. Did they let people continue to use the hotel without telling them it could be
contaminated? Did nobody notice police and men in hazmat suits there? Or was the name of the
hotel d noticed?
Everyone,,, EVERYONE knows it's all BS. BUT, everyone talking about it gives it traction. I find this no different than the USA scoundrels worried about Syrian citizens in
Idlib. Anything the West says or does is USDA Grade AAA horse hockey.
As to the UK government being able to fake the involvement of GRU agents - remember that
Sergei Skripal himself was a British spy while working for the GRU. Why not others?
The most worrying angle, as far as I am concerned, is the utter unbelievability of these
stories. Exactly in line with 9/11 (three buildings knocked down by two planes), the Boston
Marathon bombing, countless supposed multiple murders in the USA that do not seem to have
taken place as officially described, MH17, and the Syrian "chemical weapons" attacks.
The official explanations of all those stories are so weak and inconsistent that they
would be rejected as plot lines for Dr Who or CSI. So what is their little game? I can think
of two unpleasant possibilities.
They are trying to calibrate exactly how grotesque a set of lies they can pass off
without any public protest or outcry.
They are compiling a list of the few people who are both intelligent and bold enough to
point out the obvious discrepancies in public.
So we had Bolton clearly stating in the media time and time again --- if chemical weapons are
found in Idlib it would be a game changer to US policy in Syria, thus prompting those
desperate cornered brutal rebels, offering a last way out of there situation. Now we have the prime minister. UK giving a statement about new evidence re
Salisbury, chemical Russia. I would put a weeks wage on there being a chemical attack in Syria
Idlib enytime now ! This is the UK prime minster aiding a massive brutal crime.
This prime minister got in to power by a slim margine on the back of 3 false flag terror
attacks 2 in London one in Manchester persuading the public to go for the get tough vote .
Are we gulable or what ?
UK agencies have a long track record back to before WW2 running operations to get the US into
a war. Their recent false flag operations inside the UK are to soften up the US/UK public in
advance of the UK managed chemical weapon false flag attack in Syria they are clearly
threatening in advance.
This is beyond ridiculous that the dried out husk of the UK is beating its chest for war
with Russia. I almost wish that they would get their war and be beaten flat.
Just yesterday the Russian embassy in the UK released this statement: Today marks exactly six months since the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were
taken to Salisbury District Hospital under obscure circumstances...
There are times of the day when 2 passengers could arrive at an empty passport control, enter
two different tunnels at the same time and arrive at exactly the same second at equivalent
gates.
Not many times, because it means that there is no queue at either tunnel.
And 16:22 is not one of these times.
My experience through those boarding bridges is that when boarding people walk normal pace
and when exiting they do so at a faster pace down the bridge. I guess they want get to their
luggage quickly.
Køn @ 14 "In fact anyone insisting that this timestamp is some gotcha loses a lot of
credibility in my eyes."
Don't be a gallah, Køn! You think that two members of a highly trained hit
squad are going to walk through Heathrow together? You've got to be dreaming. Have you no
concept of Operational Security? Dear oh dear...
The two strong-looking men take it in turns to carry what looks like a light backpack which
is kind of odd in itself. If nerve gas had either been sprayed or smeared, one or both would
have to have used a full protective suit, which consists of a bulky gas mask, jacket,
trousers and substantial boots, which would have called for a much bigger backpack.
These photos show the same time but different locations. These are the security barriers
between passport control and the baggage reclaim hall, there are a number of parallel gates
that open automatically and are monitored by CCTV. The high resolution photos on the Met
website show a different camera angles: The Petrov photo shows a white flat surface with a
thin red stripe in the lower right corner and the top of the wall panels on the upper left.
The Boshirov picture show a much wider red stripe (and no white surface) and the top of the
panels is not visible. So you have two different gates entered at the same time.
I'm no expert but allow me to play devil's advocate. What if they have two cameras on
different angles with separate receivers in case one goes offline and their clock is not in
sync so the second camera stamps same time when it's one second later on first. It just seems
that if there was Photoshop involved they would think of changing the timestamp and inserting
person in precisely same angle. Of course it doesn't explain why they would take pictures
from two different cameras, but maybe face appeared clearer?
Which airports have parallel disimabarkation tunnels then? I've been through 4 airports in 3
different countries in the past two months and each time it was a single tunnel. The only
time I've seen two tunnels was when I was on a flight witha first class and even then it sort
of branched off, near the door of the plane.
Could it be the same corridor at two different locations at the same moment? This would
explain the different angles of the cameras, which maybe were placed at a similar location to
the railings etc.
Historian and political analyst Vladimir Kornilov wrote an article for RIA Novosti
comparing the famous 1924 SIS forgery, "Zinoviev letter", to the ongoing Skripal affair:
https://ria.ru/analytics/20180905/1527822792.html
(
machine translation ; the translation is good, except that "the Violins" should read as
"the Skripals").
Deltaeus... kindly please desist from insulting me in anitpodean. I make no assertions about trained or untrained hit squads or how they might behave. I am merely saying that anyone who thinks these timestamps represent anything suspicious
or out of the ordinary is chasing their own tails.
The UK authorities present pictures of two men that travelled together on a flight from
Moscow to London Gatwick. They went through parallel security sluices at the same time as
they were walking together. At which point they were automatically photographed. It could
just as easily have been that the time stamp was 1 second apart or even 2 seconds, or as is
in fact the case, less than 1 second apart. NOTE: They may have triggered the automatic
camera 999ms apart and still had the same timestamp so it is not strictly accurate to say
that they were pictured at exactly the same time. The sluice appears to be about 4 metres
long up to the point where the camera is triggered. I can walk 4 metres in less than 2
seconds. Which does not give a large time frame in which the walking pace of these two men
can diverge.
There is so much more suspicious and contentious in todays UK announcement that it is
ridiculous and counter productive to waste time on an easily explained time stamp.
This is an obvious fabrication of evidence. What they did was to take 2 photos from the same
tunnel using the same camera at different times, but with the camera rotated about 20 degrees
between them (notice the slightly different fish-eye lens distortions). Afterwards they
flipped one of the images horizontally and added time-stamps to the images, but forgot to
change the times between them.
Gatwick not Heathrow. I highly suggest reading the
comments to Craig Murray's blog post. Yes, as here there're some repetitive comments, but
many good points are also raised. Perhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the
camera location as at the security station you have many CCTV images that are very similar:
Something like Jetway2 Customs4, or some such. IMO, the photos and story are contrived just
as the rest of the hoax is--except for the fact that at least one person has died and likely
the Skripals most certainly--she wanted to return to Russia and take Sergei with her.
Well done UK comrades! So now you will release all the cctv from the original Salisbury
incident so we can see every detail of the cunning ruskies eh! including the entire street
videos, Mill pub and park videos too; and in high resolution this time please. Plus as the
case is solved would you be so kind as to release the complete OPCW reports and the Porton
Down reports too.
Can't have enough open government in the worlds foremost democracy now, can we?
Sy Hersch blames the poisoning of Skripals on the Russian mafia who found out he was working
with MI6 to reveal their European operations.
Could these two guys be of the Russian mafia? Them being not of the Russian IC might
explain how the poison was less than lethal for all who came in contact.
@49 Sorry Sy but your theory doesn't hold up. Teresa May has said they were from the GRU.
Here are her exact words...
"Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence,
the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are
officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.
The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.
So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at
a senior level of the Russian state."
Here is an interesting side note, relating to the statement made by "Sue Hemming, the CPS
director of legal services" (e.g. as in
this Guardian piece .
We will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian
constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals. Russia has made this clear
following requests for extradition in other cases. Should this position change then an
extradition request would be made.
This is a blatant lie. Russia's Constitution (available here in Russian states the following in Article 63,
Section 2:
В Российской
Федерации не
допускается
выдача другим
государствам
лиц,
преследуемых
за
политические
убеждения, а
также за
действия (или
бездействие),
не
признаваемые
в Российской
Федерации
преступлением.
Выдача лиц,
обвиняемых в
совершении
преступления,
а также
передача
осужденных
для отбывания
наказания в
других
государствах
осуществляются
на основе
федерального
закона или
международного
договора
Российской
Федерации.
Which means (my own translation, but Google Translate is your friend if you do not believe
me):
In the Russian Federation it is not permitted to extradite to other states individuals
who are persecuted for their political beliefs, as well as for actions (or inaction) that are
not deemed criminal in the Russian Federation. Extradition of individuals accused of
committing a crime, as well as transfer of convicts to serve their sentences in other states,
is performed on the basis of federal law or international agreements of the Russian
Federation.
I must confess that I am not up on the most current version of Russian criminal law, but I
believe "attempted murder utilizing a banned chemical weapon" does still qualify as a crime
over there, and, moreover, is not considered "political beliefs". But, of course, an official
extradition requests would entail also handing over the Crown's evidence against the accused,
which...well, clearly there is so much of it that the Crown just doesn't wish to share
any.
Perhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the camera location as at the security
station you have many CCTV images that are very similar: Something like Jetway2 Customs4,
or some such.
Se my post @45 (animation link). The camera location is the same in both images,
they just rotated the camera, and flipped one image horizontally. If you download the MET
"originals" and repeat what I did you find the match to be 100%. With identical time stamps,
you know this is fabricated evidence. There is really no other plausible or (even possible)
explanation.
It isn't the GRU (Glavnoye Razdevyvatel'noye Upravleniye, Main Intelligence Directorate) any
more. In 2010, the name was changed to GU (Glavnoye Upravleniye, Main Directorate).
"Norwegian" is correct. These pics have been tampered with bigly. "Kon" points out that one
has a "red line" while one has a more solid looking red area. That is explained by the
picture flipping and tilting. The red line is a framelike border of something. In one pic we
see that part that's further from the camera and it looks like a slim red line. In the other
pic we see the part of it which is closer to the camera, and is ALSO the corner of the line,
so it appears to be something completely different when it's actually just 2 parts of the
same puzzle.
My bet is that they were taken at different times of day, those tunnels always let natural
light in. Unless a filter was intentionally applied(to further suggest two tunnels). There
has been some photoshop fussing with the other identifying blobs - like the dirt on the
camera lense and on the floors have been erased or blurred in the flipped pic! It's mad
obvious.
Thanks Norwegian, I am posting that gif all over the place.
Thanks for your reply! Another comment mentioned the ability of such digital cameras to
self-crop as both pics are cropped as someone provided the pixel dimensions. IMO, this is
just more BigLie piled atop the preceding BigLies--doubling-down is the Neocon way after all.
All timed with Idlib, no doubt. My question along with many others: Where are the other
passengers having to travel through the same portals?
My explanation: Human images were added to an image(s) of an empty portal(s).
"It is virtually a confession from the police". Yes, one doesn't know whether to be hopeful
of a whistleblower, or just devastated at the incompetence of the so-called intelligence
agencies behind these fabrications. It's hardly ever the former unfortunately.
Nice work with the gif, it appears exactly how you describe it... just amazing fuckery. Re:
the timestamp, its so sloppy it pretty much a taunt: 'none of you sheep give a toss cos
there's not a critical thought amongst ya'
@65 Good question. And with all due respect to b I don't think the airport pictures prove
much. Who were these two? Why did they go to Salisbury? It looks too sloppy to be GRU. Russian Mafia contract killers is my guess. Unless the whole story is an elaborate MI6 concoction and all the CCTV photos are
fake.
It may be the release of this material was scheduled to coincide with the US sanctions
announced a few weeks ago, as those were said to be motivated by the Skripal case, but then
held back for domestic political reasons, as May's position has weakened just the past two
weeks. The bonus gratuitous finger-pointing at Corbyn would serve its purpose today or back
in August.
It all relies ultimately on" a body of evidence gathered by intelligence" and we know from
recent past experiences of anglo/ ameriocan Intelligence that that cannot be trusted to be
either valid or reliable .
Please people these photos were taken in exactly the same place. Nothing has been
rotated.
Notice on the right hand side there is a a small piece of a red security notice in the two
photos. You will need to see the original police photos to see this. In only one of the four
lanes is that possible. The one on the right as viewed from the exit. notice that this is the
only lane where the steel handrail on the right extends so far on the white panel. Two
different photos of the same lane with the same timestamp. ???? I'd say in both images are
fake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1570429,-0.1626642,2a,89.7y,192.36h,83.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5aRAGxER5MlF-9kpw8ZyRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Ort 17
Yes, it appears, like me, you are enjoying our latest visit to Wonderland where a great many
things are possible... all you need to do is believe. Christopher Steele has done a smackdown
job of reinvigorating the Non Fiction shelves at my library. Who knew high treason and golden
showers could ever work together.
A beautiful story, this Skripal affair...designed and timed to draw the public into
emotional judgments, against reason and logic, immediately prior to the Russian pummeling
of jihadi scum. One wonders what sort of blowback arises from such psychological conditioning. Hmmm...
I wouldn't say these images prove anything either way.
Perhaps they are doctored, but what if they were from customs entry points side-by-side?
The two men have been walking together so presumably they'd go through the customs walkways
at exactly the same time. These are not photos from the walkway off the plane - that much is clear.
On the spectrum of what is going on you have to go from one end (all this evidence is
completely fabricated - these might be images of 'dead men' so no one can step forward to
personally refute them) all the way over to the Brits are telling the truth.
Most likely, it's somewhere in the middle, but impossible to say exactly where.
Even without the time stamp discrepancy I am at loss to understand what the photos prove. Absolutely nothing. I suppose they just want to keep the story in the publics mind in
preparation for the next "Russia did it " false flag. Coming soon to a theater near you.
Ever notice September-November makes for the most exciting times? No wonder many season
premiers start in winter/spring now
Why now, when the CCTV 'evidence' must have been available for months? Just like the Douma
pantomime and subsequent bombing of Syria, this is clearly setting the scene for a western
assault on Idlib, possibly this weekend.
@71 Nice theory, except that the security notice in those police photos appear to be mounted
far too low to correspond with their location in that google maps image, even on the one lane
that you nominate. You can see that best in the "Boshirov" photo where the top-left of the
notice can be seen.
In the google maps image the signs are at head-height, so a line drawn from the ccd to a
"pretend eyeline" in Google Maps would suggest that the security camera would be recording
the bottom-left of that sign, not the top-left corner.
That walk-though was recorded in September 2017.
The security footage was filmed in March 2018.
It isn't a stretch to believe that between these two dates the signs were moved lower and
closer to the guardrail.
Anyone in Ol' Blighty want to walk up to those gates at Gatwick and tell us?
Presumably they were on the same flight? If they have identified the flights - presumably
the Russians would be able to ID these guys at the other end - in some way at least.
Russia needs to do more to get back their national Yulia Skripal . She's been brazenly
abducted by UK regime. If Brit Sh disappear na Russian imagine the fate of Julian Assange if
he steps out of that embassy
@71 Just to be clear about what I am saying, because my previous post may be confusing: if
you look at the two security shots and note the top-left corner ("Boshirov") and left-flank
("Petrov") of those signs then both suggest that the bottom-left corner of that security
notice will be just above (as in almost but not quite level-with) the top of the guardrail.
Unless there is massive foreshortening and distortion in those security camera feeds then
I would suggest that those signs have been moved between September 2017 and March 2018.
In which case, of course, your observation is not going to be valid.
Two Russian nationals . Brits decide they are Russian assassins . Were they seem committing
an assassination ? Imagine any Russian tourist now could be labelled an assassin and abducted
like Yulia Skripal and held incommunicado . Russia should take Britain to court over this
behaviour
As I wrote before, the case reeks of planted evidence. A normal logic of investigation would
be to inspect "probable leads" ASAP, and to perform tests ASAP. Instead, the famous door knob
was tested with one month delay, and the hotel room, with two month delay. But planting
evidence in an improvised mode requires planning and debates how to do it. The logistics of
planting evidence are the most plausible explanation why it was done at the place where
Skripals lived rather than close to the place where they together lost consciousness.
Planting evidence in the hotel is simplicity itself, because it is very easy to do it in a
secret lab.
OTH, pictures have semi-plausible explanation and Ruslan Boshirov is not a frequent name,
probably Muslim (Boshir/Bashir is an Arabic name, ev/ov is a Russian ending).
Two men (traveling together on Russian passports) are seen leaving a flight from Moscow
and (in the most heavily CCTV monitored country in the world), immediately take public
transport directly to and from the scene of the crime.
Its very hard to imagine that any intelligence agency would be so sloppy as to use
their own nationals, own passports, travel together, take direct flights from their own
capital, use public transport, make no effort to avoid CCTV, casually dispose of vital
evidence where it was certain to be found (a deadly poison left in a brandname perfume box at
a charity donation bin? someone was going to open it eventually), etc. There are many more
flaws but there are also more significant questions.
Is there any strong reason to believe that US or UK intelligence were less likely to
poison Skripal than Russia? Did he perhaps have evidence regarding the Steele Dossier they
wanted to silence? If so, is there any reason we should not suspect the men in the picture of
working for non-Russian intelligence who are deliberately trying to point the finger of blame
at Russia?
Leaving that aside, is there any reason not to think the men n the picture may have been
members of organized crime for some reason upset with Skripal? This might explain the lack of
professional tradecraft.
In short, even if we accept that the people in the photographs were responsible for the
poisonings, there has been no evidence presented to link them to the Russian government other
than the fact that they travelled directly from Moscow on Russian passports, a fact that
should actually be seen as making it less likely they were Russian agents.
Fyi, there are 2 terminals at Gatwick, north and south. Though, as Pft, Julian and others
have said, what do these pictures really say at this stage...? Only guilty by the logic of
highly likely.
"Ruslan Boshirov" is supposed to be Tajik. I noticed the last name "Boshirov" too
("Boshir" = Tajik rendering of "Bashir" or "Bashar").
Bashar / Bashir is a common boys' name and surname in some Muslim countries (but maybe not
Iran). Also a common surname among Christian communities in Lebanon. A former governor of New
South Wales had that surname. Both her parents were of Lebanese background.
Ruslan is a common boys' name in Russia and countries that used to be part of the Soviet
Union. It is derived from the Turkic name Arslan. As Tajiks are an Iranian-speaking people, I
am not sure if the name is popular with them. From what I have been able to find out online,
Tajiks seem to prefer Persian names.
Hmm, someone in Britain didn't do their homework terribly well.
Dr. Wellington Yueh , Sep 5, 2018 9:36:16 PM |
link
Heh...it seems to be working. We're now talking about this instead of the Idlib campaign.
Well, if Hersh has the evidence for this, I won't be doubting him. I'm sincerely open to
any good theory -- the only thing I'm certain is that it wasn't the Kremlin: there's simply
no gain for Russia in this.
Personally, I think relity is much more mundane: the UK, given its objective reality
post-Brexit, simply decided to (re)synchronize (update) its geopolitical position with the
USA's. When the USA decided to jump into the madness of Russophobia after Trump's victory,
the UK simply had to jump after because it is so dependent on the Americans they kinda didn't
have a choice.
Maybe, in a parallel universe, if Corbyn had won the 2017 snap election, we could
visualize a different position from the British. But that door is definitely close now -- and
even if he had won, we have to face the fact the UK is simply the natural ally of the USA in
the European Peninsula (the most stable one -- of course there are valuable American
satrapies in Poland, the ex-Yugoslavian republics not-named Serbia, the Baltic States and the
new, desintegrated, nazi-Ukraine; but they are of the military outpost-type, nearer the
"danger").
This is nothing more but an endless conglomeration of lies. Not just mistakes or fallacies,
but a deliberate lies. It is clear for all adequate people who have brains.
Why it is now the British authorities decided to shake off the dust from the forgotten
"Skripal case" and to revive it? Well, Syria is the answer, of course. In particular,
upcoming (in fact, already started) Idlib liberation.
They need something to try to put pressure on Russia. What tools do they have?
"Skripal case", "Russian meddling in elections" (aka "Russian hackers"), "Russian doping",
situation in Donbass, illegal detentions/abductions of Russian citizens (Ukraine did it with
Kirill Vyshinsky in May, the US did it with Maria Butina recently etc.), cheap provocations
with chemical weapons in Syria to accuse Assad/Russia.
I would pick three directions - the "Skripal case", fake "chemical attacks" in Syria
and deliberate aggravation of the situation in Donbass (terrorist act against DPR head
Alexander Zakharchenko is just the beginning) are, apparently (in their opinion), the most
effective measures to influence Russia to change its policy in Syria. These tools will be
used. Simultaneously, or in a particular order.
By the way, one must not exclude possible chemical provocations in Ukraine. Ukrainian
terrorist regime has not used it yet, but all is possible. Especially now, after "Skripal
case" is revived and some fake "chemical attacks" are definitely will happen in Idlib (giving
FUKUS a "legitimate reason" to launch aggression on Syria again). The CyberBerkut hacker team (a kind of Fancy Bears) recently
reported that chemical provocations in Ukraine (in Donbass) are in preparation stage, and
that American instructors participate in organizing of this provocation. Not a fact that this
will happen, of course, but still this possibility must not be ruled out.
As for these two men, "discovered" a half of a year after the incident... For any sane
person, the proposal to believe that these two are GRU agents is an insult to his
intellectual abilities. "GRU agents", who flew direct(!) Flight from Moscow, and flew back
the same direct(!) Flight. "GRU agents", who in general did not even tried to disguise
themselves, and, as if specifically, tried to be caught by all surveillance cameras in the
UK. "GRU agents", who used their passports(!) instead of coming to the UK secretly (for
example, through Ireland). "GRU agents", who left the "Novichok" traces wherever possible,
and then carelessly threw the bottle on the street. "GRU agents", who for some reason decided
to use such a strange, dangerous and uncomfortable method as "poisoning the victim with a
chemical warfare agent(!)" instead of easily and unnoticeably shoot a victim from a gun with
a silencer (or strangle the victim at home). "GRU agents", who did not notice anything for
eight(!) years, and then suddenly woke up and realized that they released Skripal from Russia
"without punishment"...
I can continue this endlessly. The longer the list of lies becomes, the longer the list of
disproof.
@65 virgile.. that is what some of us have concluded from the start.. phony passports or
phony characters - hard to know what one is looking at here, isn't it?
@83 brian.. it is the court of public opinion, brought to us via the western msm... guess
who is winning? msm with ignoramus's in tow, or not? - i agree with your comments @85.. no
evidence whatsoever, but that doesn't stop the russian smearing, which may be the main motive
here on the part of the uk..
@84 piotr.. i agree - planted and long after the fact..
@87 jen.. that is what i got from someone sharing a russian story via translation - which
i shared @42..
from my link at 42 which is a translation from a russian news outlet.. see the link @42 for
more..
"According to official data, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov flew on March 2, 2018
from Sheremetyevo to London Gatwick Airport. According to Fontanka, 150 passengers were
registered for the flight of Aeroflot SU2588.
The suspects bought tickets on foreign passports of the "65" series, the document numbers
differ by the last digit: ... 1297 and ... 1294.
Apparently, in the hands of Boshirov and Petrov already had return tickets, and for two
consecutive flights from Heathrow to Sheremetyevo - evening on March 4 and night 5-th. The
British authorities believe that the suspects used the first.
There are almost no open sources of information about Boshirov. According to the
"Fontanka", he was born on April 12, 1978 in Dushanbe, was registered in Moscow in a
25-storey house on Bolshaya Naberezhnaya street.
In 2015, he was brought into two executive proceedings for automobile fines received with
a difference of three days, on July 20 and 23. The oddity is that the production numbers are
not in order. The first assigned 433048, the second - 432322, although they were issued by
one unit - the interdistrict department of bailiffs to collect administrative fines number 1
in Moscow. On the portal of the magistrates of the capital there are no cases of
administrative violations against Ruslan Boshirov. Also it is not in the database of
executive production.
"Fontanka" phoned long-term residents of the "Boshiro" house on the Great Embankment. They
live on the same stairwell. "In the apartment you named, only an elderly woman lives," the
correspondent replied. "We carry her money, she collects for cleaning the cleaner." A man was
never seen in the apartment and was not seen at the entrance. We can only assume that this is
the son of the hostess, who is registered at the address, but who has never lived here. "
Boshirov's network activity is no different either. The pages created under this name and
last name in 2014 are empty. On Facebook, Boshirova has one friend registered, a girl from
Ukraine. The profile "VKontakte" contains information that Boshirov graduated in 2004 from
the geography department of Moscow State University in the direction "Hydrology of the
land".
The shoulder bags held by the two "suspects", as seen in the CCTV stills from the two
airports, are not seen in the Salisbury CCTV footage from the Sunday. Instead, in Salisbury,
the suspect in the black jacket wears a light-coloured backpack on arrival at the train
station, and the suspect in the blue jacket wears what appears to be that same backpack in
the stills from an hour later as they return to the Salisbury train station. Presumably the
backpack carried the applicator and then was later ditched.... but looking at the applicator
itself it is hard to fathom how it would not leak, either in flight or in the backpack, even
inside its alleged box. The Met police report claims that the bottle allegedly discovered
later "contained a significant amount of Novichok."
On the Sunday morning in question, the suspects allegedly walked directly to the Skripal
household from the train station (approximately 25 minutes), poisoned the Skripal door within
minutes of arrival, then immediately returned to the train station. This operation was
allegedly facilitated by a 90 minute "reconnaissance" mission the previous day, although
there are no CCTV images from this mission. Why and how the men knew they would not be seen
at the doorway on Sunday is not explained.
According to the Met Police report, swabs at the suspect's hotel room were done on May 4.
Porton Down alone confirmed the presence of Novichok from these swabs. The Met report adds:
"Two swabs showed contamination of Novichok at levels below that which would cause concern
for public health." ???? As far as I am aware, that Russian suspects may have flown in and
out of Britain on that weekend has been discussed since March, but a positive ID of
"Novichok" in a suspect's London hotel room is new information - strangely never referred to
before. The otherwise entirely circumstantial case depends on the presence of the chemical in
the hotel room, as there is otherwise no direct connection of these men to "Novichuk",
perfume bottles, or the Skripal house (the CCTV footage can only place them in the
"vicinity").
This case retains its improvised nature. Something seems to have been botched somewhere in
the original March events, and the proclamation of Russian guilt was announced too soon and
too unequivocally to back down from. The Novichok in the perfume bottle and now the two
alleged suspects with the alleged trace Novichok in the hotel room appear to be semi-clumsy
additions to the evidence designed to buttress the faulty story after the fact.
This is simply another fine example of the Theory of Tells. The Dark Agents NEVER allow the
strange evidence that they release to the public to be totally coherent or rational. They
always insert impossible artifacts. If the narratives they create were reasonably coherent,
they would never have the proper effect of causing profound cognitive dissonance in the mind
of the public, they could therefor never achieve the necessary degree of fear, uncertainty
and doubt.
That would invite people to ask pertinent questions. There must always be a few strategic
red herrings. So they always leave strategic tells.
They are different photographs a few seconds apart as can be seen by the figures at
the very back of the jetway who move a tiny bit closer to the camera after the first suspect
passes.
However, the timestamps are then fake and represent a mistake on the part of the person
*creating* the evidence. He fucked up and put the same stamp on both pictures.
These pictures were taken a short time apart, but not at the time stamped... i.e. boarding
a different flight. A different flight. The timeline is hokum . They did not fly in
and out at the times stated or on the flights stated.
It is even conceivable that the person cooking the books wanted to include something that
would show it was hokum, that he or she wasn't completely on board. I wonder who it was?
The doors that have those "Do not enter" symbols facing us or the greeting area are open
in b's pictures because the individuals have just passed thru them. Therefore you only
faintly see the grey back of the symbols.
Also, note how in one Google photo the steel guardrails are on paneling right beside the
security signs while in the other Google photos it shows the guardrail separated from the
security signs with an empty panel except for the corridor furthest to the right. So the
correct photo is the former one and the individuals went through two exactly similar
side-by-side corridors simultaneously, which means the photos might be legit. Also, there are
at least two or more cameras on the ceiling facing corridors which explains the different
angles. It looks like photos are authentic.
@86 Well that explains why in one photo there's an extra glass panel and in the other the
panel with the guardrail is beside the panel with the security signs! There are two sets of
corridors in the airport.
The photos in the article are Therefore most likely authentic.
The key proposition that the police are asserting is that the Skripals were poisoned by
'delayed reaction'. The alleged suspects were out of Salisbury 3 hours before the Skripals
exhibited signs of poisoning, nerve agents, however, act immediately. If the 'door handle
theory' is not physically possible, which it is not, then that leaves out the assassin
hypothesis. Most likely, as I have always said, is that this is about Sergei's skulduggery,
he took delivery of the agent from these guys for eventual passing over to the White Helmets
via their MI6 handlers. All went pear shaped because of a leaky bottle. Sergei realised
something was wrong so hurried his meal so he could check it out, reached the park bench with
Julia and the saw that the bottle was leaking and began to feel ill, Julia through the thing
away and went down herself.
Interesting that Theresa May brought up and then dismissed the possibility of a rogue
operation. This tells me she is determined to pin the blame on Putin no matter what. I am
sure that the smarter elements of British security have a pretty good idea of what has
occurred. They will say nothing and they would be quite happy to keep Theresa Mays narrative
out in the public domain. Cooperation from Sergei is guaranteed, he has been caught once
again in a betrayal, as he always does because he is one of lifes losers.
Predictions 1 these guys have a connection to Julia's boyfriend.
Prediction 2 the 'Novichok' is decades old material obtained from the black
market and related to the black market material used in a previous Russian assassination.
The agent would be largely degraded to a less toxic degradation product, that doesn't
matter as its purpose, I believe, is for propaganda not killing. Amateur hour handling with
these ridiculously inappropriate and unsafe containers says a lot.
Fascinating to see the tinfoil hat brigade turn out in such numbers to rant and rave about the
"Deep State!" and poor, honest Donald Trump as a freedom fighter who is daily sacrificing
himself for the good people of America.
Why do bullies always pretend to be victims?
As with science, human nature can usually boiled down to the most likely answer, the simple
observable truth. Such as; Donald Trump's entire life is a story of greed, vulgarity and self
promotion to the exclusion of all else. He did not, in his 8th decade, suddenly develop a
desire to serve the American people at his own expense. He is in the White House doing exactly
what he has always done, he is pursuing whatever makes him happiest in the moment with no
regard to consequences, morality or even common sense.
Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts);
then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.
As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very
clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.
Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole"
human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering
one's tail if a coup were to occur.
Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the
immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the
social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon
budget and etcetera.
What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy,
enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk
(remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by
Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.
A better - more objective - book would
get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether
Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.
That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional
politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore
because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego
doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned
everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians
and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better
journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.
'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'
Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes.
Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is
motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally
incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his
more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).
Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a
fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While
sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth
utterly deranged.
While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really
sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes
to play his next round of golf.
Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based
upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in
a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have
the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.
Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the
instigator of a new dark age for the USA
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that
matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?
I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't
understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without
reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the
next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He
has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who
knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don
can. And that would not be good.
He's done it before. Lots of times.
Example: one of his posts back in April:
"Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll
punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since
he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."
There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair,
people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or
even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or
upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in
re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from
within.
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most
political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy
as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the
weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the
state.
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the
everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this
dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.
The Russia after years of
sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So
They will probably less affected by what is coming.
Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe
you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at
making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most
skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill.
Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.
Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty
extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous
discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.
Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself
proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very
obvious reason.
It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or
their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any
impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen
Trump's own political support in direct opposition.
Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt
people.
Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author
singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our
national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some
regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who
claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax
reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there
were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a
complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to
"precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration
in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump
to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we
have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines
about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies,
and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it
as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of
authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is
not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.
The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the
Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of
'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans
are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course
refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one
in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.
Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war
on top, is utterly fucked.
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a
robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times ..
four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly
to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even
before the US military became .. robust?..
What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security
ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink
..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then
there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced
this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing
machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political
analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor
do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up
their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the
current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in
criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if
you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain
a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a
secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would
keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece
was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to
galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected
traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a
thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will
of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob.
Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling out of the woodwork, I would say
Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these
people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now
disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt
metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I
suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that
has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived
interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and
others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all
its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before
green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a
revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of
the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can
hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed
for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from
the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of
dictators:
"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,
such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded
nations."
And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he
wanted to kill Assad:
Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical
attack against civilians, according to a new book.
Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he
would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not
going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical
attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included
the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to
kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach
Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.
he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor
increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and
pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the
democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry
animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling
things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the
current ukrainian government.
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the
previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or
"neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party
nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in
which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could,
there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start
and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me
from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who
is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and
so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of
power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump
Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an
apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no
country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world
affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on
frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That
said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of
integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores
issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them
pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only
danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.
I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody
really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government
to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves
out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an
Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful,
and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive
nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is
nothing illegal in that.
I get that you might not have any functional understanding of
US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for
the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it.
What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic
factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It
also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core
constituencies.
Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those
around him who are.
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in
themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on
everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and
militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of
conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political
spectrum.
Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic
state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender
discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal
principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between
life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super
Thatcherism.
The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern
American history. Former CIA Director
John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active
insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".
"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the
orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get
worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A
wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."
In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and
prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".
The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via
the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a
president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided
against it.
British Assassination Campaign Targeting Russian Exiles?
Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have
met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile
individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent
Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of
President Vladimir Putin's government.
Invariably, British politicians and news media
refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign
activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta
against critics and traitors.
The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in
the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British
and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is
simply no question about it in their assertions.
The claims have also been given a quasi-legal veracity, with a British government-appointed
inquiry in the case of Alexander Litvinenko making a conclusion
that his death in 2006 was "highly likely" the result of a Kremlin plot to assassinate. Putin
was personally implicated in the death of Litvinenko by the official British inquiry. The
victim was said to have been poisoned with radioactive polonium. Deathbed images of a
bald-headed Litvinenko conjure up a haunting image of alleged Kremlin evil-doing.
Once the notion of Russian evil-doing is inculcated the public mind, then subsequent events
can be easily invoked as "more proof" of what has already been "established". Namely, so it
goes, that the Russian state is carrying out assassinations on British territory.
Thus, we see this "corroborating" effect with the alleged poisoning of a former Russian
double-agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in Salisbury back in March this year.
What actually happened to the Skripals is not known – who are said to have since
recovered their health, but their whereabouts have not been disclosed by the British
authorities. Nevertheless, as soon as the incident of their apparent poisoning occurred, it was
easy for the British authorities and media to whip up accusations against Russia as being
behind "another assassination attempt" owing to the past "established template" of other
Russian émigrés seeming to have been killed by Kremlin agents.
For its part, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement in the
ill-fate of nationals living in exile in Britain. On the Skripal case, Moscow has pointed out
that the British authorities have not produced any independently verifiable evidence against
the Kremlin. Russian requests for access to the investigation file have been rejected by the
British.
On the Litvinenko case, Russia has said that the official British inquiry was conducted
without due process of transparency, or Russia being allowed to defend itself. It was more
trial by media.
A common denominator is that the British have operated on a presumption of guilt. The
"proof" is largely at the level of allegation or innuendo of Russian malfeasance.
But let's turn the premise of the argument around. What if the British state were the ones
conducting a campaign of assassination against Russian émigrés, with the
cold-blooded objective of using those deaths as a propaganda campaign to blacken and
criminalize Russia?
In a recent British media interview Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov was typically harangued over alleged Russian malign activity in Britain. Lavrov rightly
turned the question around, and said that the Russian authorities are the ones who are entitled
to demand an explanation from the British state on why so many of its nationals have met
untimely deaths.
The presumption of guilt against Russia is based on a premise of Russophobia, which prevents
an open-minded inquiry. If an open mind is permitted, then surely a more pertinent position is
to ask the British authorities to explain the high number of deaths in their jurisdiction.
As ever, the litmus-test question is: who gains from the deaths? In the case of the alleged
attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, would Russia risk such a bizarre
plot against an exile who had been living in Britain undisturbed for 10 years? Or would Britain
gain much more from smearing Moscow at the time of President Putin's re-election in March, and
in the run-up to the World Cup?
The more recent alleged nerve-agent poisoning of two British citizens – Charlie Rowley
and Dawn Sturgess – in the southern English town of Amesbury revived official anti-Russia
accusations and public fears over the earlier Skripal incident in nearby Salisbury.
The Amesbury incident in early July occurred just as a successful World Cup tournament in
Russia was underway. It also came ahead of US President Donald Trump's landmark summit with
Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
Again, who stands to gain most from these provocative events? Russia or Britain?
Another revealing twist in the presumed narrative of "Kremlin criminality" came from a
recent interview given to Russian
news media by the daughter of the deceased oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Of course, her side of
the story received no coverage in the British media.
Liza Berezovsky believes that her father's death in 2013, while living in exile in Britain,
was the dirty work of British state assassins. The case has added importance because it links
directly to the previous death of Alexander Litvinenko, who was also living as an exile in
Britain.
Berezovsky's daughter believes that her father wanted to return from Britain to Russia so
that he could live out his old age in his native country. She claims that the oligarch had
vital information on how the death of Litvinenko in 2006, reportedly from radioactive polonium
poisoning, had actually been staged as a smear against Putin and the Kremlin.
Boris Berezovsky, his daughter claims, played a key role along with the British state in
orchestrating the demise of Litvinenko to look like an assassination plot carried out by the
Kremlin. It was Berezovsky who apparently suggested that Litvinenko, with whom he was an
associate, shave off his hair in order to drum up the suspicion of Kremlin poisoning.
Liza Berezovsky contends that, seven years after Litvinenko died, her father was preparing
to divulge the dirty tricks involving the British state and their anti-Russian campaign. She
said the oligarch wanted to atone for his past misdeeds and to make his peace with Mother
Russia. She believes that British state agents got wind of his plans to come clean, which would
have caused them an acute international scandal.
In March 2013, just days before he was due to depart from Britain, the oligarch was found
dead in his mansion near Ascot, in the English countryside, apparently from suicide caused by a
ligature around his neck.
In the end, however, a British civil coroner did not conclude suicide, and left an "open
verdict" on the death. An eminent German pathologist hired by Liza Berezovsky provided
post-mortem evidence that her father's body showed signs of his death having not been
self-inflicted. He was, in their view, murdered.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that British secret services are running an
assassination program on Russian exiles. These exiles are often used for a time by the British
state as media assets, presented as high-profile critics of the Kremlin and lending testimonies
to much-publicized allegations of "authoritarianism" and "human rights abuses" under Putin.
At some opportune later time, these Russian dissidents can be liquidated by British agents.
Their deaths are then presented as "more proof" of Russian malign activity and in particular
for the purpose of criminalizing President Putin and his government.
Considering how London has become an international haven for Russian oligarchs whose wealth
is often tainted as being proceeds from criminal activity against Russian laws and who
therefore are easily framed as Putin opponents – the British state has ample
opportunities for setting up "assassinations" and anti-Putin provocations.
Such a nefarious British program is by no means unprecedented. During the 30-year armed
conflict in Northern Ireland ending in the late 1990s, it is
documented that the British state ran clandestine assassination campaigns against Irish
republican figures, as well as ordinary citizens, as a coldly calculated political instrument
of state-sponsored terrorism. It was an instrument honed by the British from other colonial-era
conflicts, such as in Kenya, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Malaysia (formerly Malaya), and in
several Arab countries like Bahrain and Yemen, as detailed by British historian Mark
Curtis in his book Web of Deceit.
Adapting such heinous techniques for a contemporary propaganda war against Russia wouldn't
cost any qualms to British state grandees and their agents. Indeed, for them, it would be
simply Machiavellian business-as-usual.
"... The time that "Boshirov and Petrov" were allegedly in Salisbury carrying out the attack is all entirely within the period the Skripals were universally reported to have left their home with their mobile phones switched off. ..."
"... But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the earliest. ..."
"... But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras. Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught frequently on CCTV on arriving. ..."
"... The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital. ..."
"... In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast "Petrov and Boshirov" managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit. ..."
"... This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals' location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out. ..."
"... they may have been meeting them, outside the home. The evidence points to that, rather than doorknobs. Such a meeting might explain why the Skripals had turned off their mobile phones to attempt to avoid surveillance. ..."
"... If "Boshirov and Petrov" are secret agents, their incompetence is astounding. They used public transport rather than a vehicle and left the clearest possible CCTV footprint. They failed in their assassination attempt. They left traces of novichok everywhere and could well have poisoned themselves, and left the "murder weapon" lying around to be found. Their timings in Salisbury were extremely tight – and British Sunday rail service dependent. ..."
The time that "Boshirov and Petrov" were allegedly in Salisbury carrying out the attack
is all entirely within the period the Skripals were
universally reported to have left their home with their mobile phones switched
off.
A key hole in the British government's account of the Salisbury poisonings has been plugged
– the lack of any actual suspects. And it has been plugged in a way that appears broadly
convincing – these two men do appear to have traveled to Salisbury at the right time to
have been involved.
But what has not been established is the men's identity and that they are agents of the
Russian state, or just what they did in Salisbury. If they are Russian agents, they are
remarkably amateur assassins. Meanwhile the new evidence throws the previously reported
timelines into confusion – and demolishes the theories put out by "experts" as to why the
Novichok dose was not fatal.
At 09.15 on Sunday 4 March the Skripals' car was seen on CCTV driving through three
different locations in Salisbury. Both Skripals had switched off their mobile phones and they
remained off for over four hours, which has baffled geo-location.
There is no CCTV footage that indicates the Skripals returning to their home. It has
therefore always been assumed that they last touched the door handle around 9am.
But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov
did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they
could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the
earliest.
But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after
noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras.
Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught
frequently on CCTV on arriving.
The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that
their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital.
So even if the Skripals made an "invisible" trip home before being seen on Devizes Road,
that means the very latest they could have touched the doorknob is 13.15. The longest possible
gap between the novichok being placed on the doorknob and the Skripals touching it would have
been one hour and 15 minutes. Do you recall all those "experts" leaping in to tell us that the
"ten times deadlier than VX" nerve agent was not fatal because it had degraded overnight on the
doorknob? Well that cannot be true. The time between application and contact was between a
minute and (at most) just over an hour on this new timeline.
In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie
Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements
around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast "Petrov and Boshirov" managed to be
frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.
This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals' location around noon on 4
March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist
they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV
leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into
contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.
"Boshirov and Petrov" plainly are of interest in this case. But only Theresa May stated they
were Russian agents: the police did not, and stated that they expected those were not their
real identities. We do not know who Boshirov and Petrov were. It appears very likely their
appearance was to do with the Skripals on that day. But they may have been meeting them,
outside the home. The evidence points to that, rather than doorknobs. Such a meeting might
explain why the Skripals had turned off their mobile phones to attempt to avoid
surveillance.
It is also telling the police have pressed no charges against them in the case of Dawn
Sturgess, which would be manslaughter at least if the government version is true.
If "Boshirov and Petrov" are secret agents, their incompetence is astounding. They used
public transport rather than a vehicle and left the clearest possible CCTV footprint. They
failed in their assassination attempt. They left traces of novichok everywhere and could well
have poisoned themselves, and left the "murder weapon" lying around to be found. Their timings
in Salisbury were extremely tight – and British Sunday rail service dependent.
There are other possibilities of who "Boshirov and Petrov" really are, of which Ukrainian is
the obvious one. One thing I discovered when British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was that there
had been a large Ukrainian ethnic group of scientists working at the Soviet chemical weapon
testing facility there at Nukus. There are many other possibilities.
Yesterday's revelations certainly add to the amount we know about the Skripal event. But
they raise as many new questions as they give answers.
The op-ed is nauseating because it tells us the truth why they do it: Because conservatives got
their tax cuts, deregulation and all the other conservative politics that gamble with people's
lives. It's disgusting.
I am outraged at describing Trump's administration as a "pirate ship"!
Pirate ships were in
reality the most egalitarian institutions that existed in the 17th century. Their articles
laid out that both the captain and quartermaster (who divided the spoils) served at the
pleasure of their crew, and that the entire crew had rights to a fair portion of the
proceeds.
On a real pirate ship, Captain Trump would have lost his job long ago and been abandoned
on some tiny island with a single shot in his pistol.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
By now anyone with an opinion on the Skripal poisoning has already decided if they believe
the official narrative or not. Still, the event and the ongoing media coverage around it
presents an opportunity to understand more than we might think.
The British government claim is that a "military-grade nerve agent", one of a group of nerve
agents supposedly called 'novichok' (which simply means 'newcomer'), was used by Russia on
Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. They reach the conclusion that Russia is to blame
because, they claim, the nerve agent used is "of a type developed by Russia."
Russian daily newspaper Kommersant recently released a 6-page
document they claim constitutes the British government's official case against Russia. They
summed up the 'evidence' as follows:
Military-grade Novichok nerve agent positively identified at the UK's Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, an OPCW-accredited and designated laboratory Novichok
is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC A violation of
the fundamental prohibition on the use of chemical weapons (Art. 1 CWC) First offensive use
of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War We are without doubt that Russia is
responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There is no
plausible alternative explanation As of Sunday 18 March, we count over thirty parallel lines
of Russian disinformation
Note the 2nd point, that " Novichok is a group of agents developed only by
Russia and not declared under the CWC ."
In an interview with AFP, the former Russian scientist who participated in the development
of "Novichok" in Russia in the 70s and 80s, Vil Mirzayanov, stated that if Russia was not
responsible for the poisoning:
"The only other possibility would be that someone used the formulas in my book to make such a
weapon.
Mirzayanov's book, published
in 2008 , contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create "Novichoks". In 1995, he
explained that
"the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be
made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and
pesticides."
So the British government claim that this type of nerve agent can only be Russian, and was
only developed by Russia, is demonstrably false. In fact, in her statement to
the House of Commons on 12th March 2018 , British Prime Minister Theresa May contradicted
that claim when she said:
"It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve
agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as
'Novichok' . Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by
world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down. "
In the world of nerve agents, in order to positively identify a sample, you must
have your own sample for comparison and positive identification.
In a judgement at the British High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to
be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by the Porton Down laboratory to the court
(Section 17 i) stated:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated
exposure to a nerve agent or related compound . The samples tested positive for the
presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent. "
Again, Porton Down must have had a sample of the alleged nerve agent used to
poison Skripal and his daughter. That can mean only one of two things: that Porton Down
obtained the nerve agent from some other party, or manufactured it on site . Porton Down is,
after all, in the business
of producing chemical weapons (ostensibly to test them on anti-chemical weapon equipment).
Note also that the wording used in the quote above includes the possibility that the agent
used on Skripal was not even 'Novichok' but rather a "related compound" or something "closely
related." So even Theresa May's statement that the British MoD had "positively identified"
'Novichok' seems false.
In
an interview with German Deutsch Welle , bumbling UK Foreign Secretary Boris
Johnson was directly asked if scientists at Porton Down had samples of 'Novichok', to which he
replied:
" They do . And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said,
'Are you sure?' And he said there's no doubt."
So the only thing we can presume to be 100% certain of in the poisoning of Skripal
and his daughter is that the nerve agent used was in stock at Porton Down, 8 miles from the
site of the poisoning.
In the 5th point in the British government 6-page 'dossier', the British establishment
claims:
"We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined
capability, intent and motive. There is no plausible alternative."
We know that other countries have the capability. Claiming to have no doubt about
someone's intent is nonsense. So we're left with motive. Did Russia have a motive to poison
Skripal and his daughter? Motives for a course of action are intrinsically linked to the result
of the action. The obvious and predictable result of using a nerve agent that was originally
developed in Russia in the 1970s to poison a former Russian spy living in the UK and working
for British intelligence is that Russia would be blamed and universally condemned for it. So if
Russia was motivated to further downgrade its reputation on the international stage, then sure,
Russia had motivation to poison Skripal and his daughter.
The problem is that there is no evidence that Russia desires to damage its own reputation in
this way. Is there evidence that anyone else has such motivation? For those that have been
paying attention to world affairs over the past 6 or 7 years, I'll presume that you don't need
me to answer that one.
So when we remove the unfounded and contradictory claims around the Skripal poisoning, the
actual facts of the case are rather limited:
Skripal lived in Salisbury, England, and had
been working for MI5 for 8 years. It is reasonable to assume that he may, therefore, have had
access to sensitive material, possibly useful to foreign governments, including Russia. As
such, he may have posed an 'intelligence threat' if he returned to Russia. According to a close friend , Skripal had
recently decided that he wanted to go back to live in Russia and petitioned the Russian
government to that end. Not long thereafter, Skripal was poisoned with a substance that was in
stock at a British Ministry of Defense facility, 8 miles from where he was living. The British
government blamed Russia for his poisoning. This accusation must be seen in the context of a
years-long anglo-American black propaganda campaign designed to marginalize Russia and thereby
limit its ability to effectively assert itself as a globally influential player. I've heard
people make the argument that any investigations of what really happened in Salisbury can only
ever be guesswork, that we can never be 100% sure. Of course, that's true to a degree,
especially when dealing with evidence which may be held back from public disclosure because of
reasons of "national security". But such people tend to use this line of thinking simply to
avoid taking a position, because taking a position scares some people, especially if it is not
the official position. It's also not very realistic or practical. If we were to hold all
statements and claims to the same level of proof, our court systems would become obsolete.
Rarely is there enough evidence to find a criminal guilty with a 100% degree of certainty.
That's why courts hold the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and allow for
circumstantial evidence.
Insistence on absolute proof fails to recognize that, as humans, we don't navigate our lives
and make decisions on the basis of 100% proof. Instead, we use something akin to 'past form'.
For example, if I intend to take the train at 9.15am from platform 1 in the morning, I cannot
be 100% certain that the train will be there at 9.15am, or that it will be there at all that
day. Instead, I actively assume that it will be there based on the circumstantial evidence I
have accrued through repeated observations that when I go there at that time the train is
there. You could even say that the train is very likely to be there because it has the means,
motive and opportunity.
That's how we go about our daily lives, at least. But in cases of guilt and innocence we
probably need a higher standard. Many suspects may have means, motive and opportunity at the
same time. That doesn't mean they're all guilty. And a history of similar crimes does not
necessarily mean that a suspect is guilty of one particular crime. So what to do in a
case like the Skripal poisoning? The only thing we can do is compare competing hypotheses and
the degrees to which they are consistent with all the facts available. In other words, which
scenario is more likely given the known facts?
In answering the question of who poisoned Sergei Skripal and his daughter, we lack 100%
proof that the British government (or some element thereof) was responsible for the attack,
just as we lack 100% proof that the Russian government was responsible. In fact, the evidence
and reasoning provided by the British government does not actually support the Russian
hypothesis over competing hypotheses, because we would see the same evidence if the attack were
carried out in order to frame Russia. If evidence applies equally to two or more competing
hypotheses, naturally that evidence cannot be used to support one hypothesis over the other,
which is precisely what the British government is doing.
In contrast, the British government's apparent access to the precise nerve agents in
question, close to where Skripal lives, their full access to Skripal himself, their past form
in fabricating evidence of chemical weapons usage by other states, and their clear intent to
wage a vicious and underhanded demonization campaign against Russia, all combine to allow us to
actively assume that the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter was the work of the British
government itself. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Perhaps not, but it is currently
the only hypothesis that makes sense given the evidence available. And until more evidence is
made available, it is the only reasonable conclusion to make.
An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive
editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His
articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several
internet radio shows and has also appeared on IranianPress TV. His articles
can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net .
It's hard to even decipher the official narrative, it's an incoherent mess, lacking any
motive, lacking any factual content.
Where we have facts, e.g. 3 actual admissions to hospital and compare with the narrative,
130 lives threatened, it's makes May's announcements appear total nonsense
It's all very well western MSM and governments asking us to believe their narratives but
their story lines never make sense ... they just lack logical consistency and tend to have
glaring plot holes .... it's all hypocritical BS
Lol. Is there anyone on SOTT who believes the official narrative?
I've been knitting a sweater waiting for some really good 'official' evidence;
I'm about to start in on a new one and perhaps a blanket after that.
The thing about official narratives is that they try to appeal to the 'plausible lie'
(repeated often enough on the news - and nothing new here to SOTT readers), and in a court of
law (or world opinion) this type of lie, as we know, can do the trick in peoples heads.
Double-down on it all with rolled out authoritarians and the MSN public can be like putty -
moldable.
Thanks for writing such a good article - nice work!
This whole episode disgusts me, and that is what is, an episode, in the pathological drama
that is enfolding in the world today.
It has no bearing or relevance to what is occurring in the real world, it's a staged
political act.
These so called politicians in the west are so inept, they are no longer able to judge or
respond to the will of the people, for which they have been elected I might add, they resort
to extraordinary measures to keep the electorate on side.
Unfortunately, it seems to be missing the mark, evidence all the mass unrest in the US, UK
and Europe.
The so called Austerity measures have done nothing more than to create more chaos on an
already chaotic situation, fueled by emotional fervor.
And of course, we have the MSM fueling the fire. At one time it was described as the 5 th
Estate, No longer, it is a collaborator and cooperator in the message that the political
elite want to send to the masses.
Well it's a free choice one can believe the evidence that is presented from whatever news
source one wants to watch, read or listen to. Personally I think there should be a warning
message, like on food labels, that if one listens, watches or reads the MSM, it is a case of
buyer beware, in the case of MSM, it is a case of your mind beware, and that is the most
important thing as far as I am concerned, ones own personal integrity is not compromised, the
ability to discern truth from lies.
Joan ''...These so called
politicians in the west are so inept,...''
The politicians are not the ones running the show. Big money is. Really big
money. Consortiums of major banks and oil companies for example. The Rockerfeller family is
another one. I forgot the number but I do remember their fortune is unbelievably colossal.
They are in everything. Just a handful of people are running the show from behind the scene.
Surely you know that.
demore Yes I do know that. And what we are witnessing is a show for public consumption
It has no relation to what is happening in th real world. Business with Russia continues,
although they may have to jump more hurdles, the space station continues, banking and finance
continues. trade continues, cultural exchanges continues.
So this is a purely a staged political event to sway the peoples to back a pathological
ideology.
They live in a bubble of there own reality and unfortunately they are trying to get people
to pierce the bubble and enter that reality.
Consider for example this picture which shows Mr. Skripal and his daughter Yulia presumably
in the pub or the restaurant they visited before they collapsed. Who is the third person,
visible in the mirror between them, who took the picture?
Is this third person the MI6 agent Pablo Miller who in 1995 recruited Skripal as British
double agent. Miller who was also involved in handling the MI6 assets Boris Berezovski and
Alexander Litvinenko. Pablo Miller who lives close to Sergej Skripal in Salisbury and is
considered to be his friend? The same Pablo Miller who worked with former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence which created the 'dirty dossier' about
Donald Trump? How deep were the Skripals involved in making up the fake stories in the
anti-Trump dossier for which the Clinton campaign paid more than $168,000 dollars. Did the
Skripals threaten to talk about the issue? Is that why the incident happened?
Without going too far into the gymnastics of the Skripals' poisoning, it is quite probable
Theresa May may have known there was going to be a poisoning of the Skripals, before the
actual poisoning took place. Check the timings of the released 'certainty' data.
Her unprotected visit to the sites should also be a clear indication of 'something'.
What is the name of the 'containing' hospitals, and where is it located?
Isn't this scenario following a distinct parallel path to Iraq's WMD, starting with the
very similar vial, and posture?
I appreciate the good analysis that Joe here and others elsewhere have done to lay bare the
dishonesty and fraud of this staged incident. However, after so many such faked affairs I
think another response is necessary.
1. The First Response by Russia and others should be to flatly and bluntly say it is a
bunch of lying shit. By this I mean that Russia et al should stop being so damned reasonable.
That this sort of stuff should be flung back at the accusers with defiance.
2. Russia et al should inflict immediate and painful measure on the perpetrators. Hit them
hard where it counts. Seize assets, arrest nationals, attack economically, impose sanctions.
Make it clear that whatever they do to Russia can be taken in stride. But the west is fragile
and weak and greedy and so not able to receive return blows. Do this with an air of 'we can
take it, we will dish it out, you can't hadle it'.
3. Split the Europeans. Pitch soft to some countries like Italy but pound others like the
UK. They are weak, they will fold.
4. Announce bold new military undertakings. Up the building of weapon systems. Increase
the reserves, deployment. Make it very clear there will be a price and Russia is prepared to
inflict serious pain.
5. Continue to buddy up to China. Dramatically increase economic protection measure.
Prepare to attack and undermine western currencies and markets.
The bragging and posturing of the west is a gambler's last throw. They cannot maintain by
force or any other means cohesion. Faced with painful resistance parts of the regime will
grow fearful and capitulate. Make for civil war. Let them destroy themselves. This is the
cheapest and safest way to put the lot out of business.
But, China, Russia and honest people in the west need to show some teeth to set this in
motion.
Yeah Ned, but I think that's exactly what they want Russia to do, and they ain't playing that
game. it must be maddening to them to poke and prod them and they are, like you say, so damn
reasonable,
So where is the 'Novichok' talk coming from? Well, someone in the British government
propaganda staff watched the current seasons of the British-American spy drama Strike Back.
(reverse causality IMO - it was planned, possibly predictive programming and
conditioning)
Nina Byzantina points to the summaries of recent episodes:Episode 50 ran in the U.K on
November 21 2017 and in the U.S. on February 23 2018:
Meanwhile, General Lázsló shuts down Section 20, forcing Donovan to work in
secret. She discovers that Zaryn is in fact Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly
killed his colleagues with Novichok, a nerve agent they invented.
Episodes 51 ran in the U.K on November 28 2017 and in the U.S. on March 2 2018:
Section 20 track Berisovich's meth lab in Turov where Markov is making more Novichok and
destroy it, though Berisovich escapes with Markov.
Episodes 52 ran in the U.K on January 31 2018 and in the U.S. on March 9 2018:
Section 20 track down Maya, a local Muslim woman Lowry radicalised, to a local airport.
When she attempts to release the Novichok, Reynolds shoots her. The Novichok is fake however,
as Berisovich does not want an attack committed in his country. ... By the time Section 20
arrives, Berisovich had already called in the FSB to extract Markov and confiscate the
Novichok. Yuri resurfaces to kill McAllister and Wyatt. However they turn the tables and
strangle him to death. They then manage to engage the FSB and contain the gas. But in the
process Reynolds is exposed. Markov works on an antidote but is killed by the Russians before
he can complete. McAllister improvises and saves Reynolds, before Novin blows up the lab.
Lowry uses the remainder of the gas to kill Berisovich for trying to betray her.
Here is a clip from the series: [ Link ]
See article here: [
Link ]
Sadly, however, facts and logic are not being used by the masses here as the proles have
been sufficiently programmed, that they will 'knee jerk' without analysis, without open
minds, and will do what the PTB's MSM tells them to do.
When absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt that the official story of 9/11 came out; to
wit: the proof of explosive Alumino Sulfate? Nano sized unexploded particles in the dust of
WTC, a friend, newly introduced to the 'bigger truths', asked, 'Well how are they going to
explain this away?"
I told him, just like they did in not talking about WTC7. You never knew about it until
2003 when I told you. Same approach here."
Well, assuming your point is true, the more valid it is, the more it will be ignored.
Given that Russia had ample chance to kill Skripal when he was imprisoned there for
several years, there's obviously a complete lack of a motive on Russia's part. And further
given the abundant means, motive and opportunity of, by, and available to, the British
government, it looks beyond reasonable doubt to me.
The logic behind the official narrative that Russia did it because Skripal was Russian and
'novichok' was originally developed by Russians is not far off believing that standing in a
garage makes you a car. But clearly this is how the UK gov & Co see it.
Well, they're not much of 'intellectual Ferraris', are they. More like three-wheel
bicycles ridden by a child with special educational needs.
By now anyone with an opinion on the Skripal poisoning has already decided if they believe
the official narrative or not. Still, the event and the ongoing media coverage around it
presents an opportunity to understand more than we might think.
I don't even get eye-rolls these days when I talk with True Believers.
I've been noticing that the tactic now employed most often, (other than simply avoiding
eye contact and scurrying away), is to interrupt, be louder, to spin anxious, meandering and
waaaaay-off point diatribes which go on for many minutes at a time without letup, repeatedly
referencing totems and touchstones like, "Scientific peer review is the only thing
separating us from chaos!" -and canned talking points which may or may not have any
bearing on the subject.
The 10 Main Holes in the Official Narrative on the Salisbury Poisonings: #1 – The
Motive
When I began writing about the Skripal case, I was moved to do so by three main
considerations.
Firstly, I really am passionate for the truth, and whatever the truth happens to be in
this case, I strongly desire it to be made manifest. It was clear to me fairly early on that
this was not happening.
Secondly, I am also very passionate about concepts such as the rule of law, innocent until
proven guilty, and the apparently quaint notion that investigations should precede verdicts,
rather than the other way around. And so when I saw accusations being made before the
investigation had hardly begun, verdicts being reached before the facts were established, I
was appalled -- appalled that this was happening in what we British pride ourselves is the
Mother of Parliaments, and equally appalled that this meant the investigation was inevitably
prejudiced and – pardon the expression – poisoned from the off.
Thirdly, the incident happened to have taken place pretty much on my doorstep, which made
it of even more interest to me.
Nothing I have seen in the intervening time has persuaded me that my initial impressions
were wrong. In fact, the whiff of rodent I first detected has only become stronger as time
has gone on and the case has become -- frankly -- farcical.
"... the United States expelled 60 diplomats back in March, and more recently they have effectively declared economic war on the Russian Federation – all in response to unproven and inconsistent assertions of a botched assassination attempt against an old spy in a quiet Wiltshire City. Such a response ought to raise the suspicions of any sentient being that all is not what it appears. ..."
"... The first question to be asked is this: What exactly does she mean by "the motive"? By including that definite article before the word "motive", she implies that there is only one "motive" – the ..."
"... it is known -- although woefully unreported because of a media ban -- that Mr Skripal was connected to the man behind the so-called Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele. Personally, I am reasonably convinced that Mr Skripal had a hand in putting this dossier together, given his connections to Steele, and since it was almost certainly authored by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" . ..."
"... Might this give a motive to some very powerful groups who are nervous about the origins and details of this dossier coming to light? Yes, of course. Then why is it not a line of possible enquiry? Answers on a postcard to the Department of the Blindingly Obvious. ..."
"... Mrs May had no right to state that the Russian Federation had "the motive". The best she could have said at that stage, without taking other possibilities into account, was that they had "a motive". The motive she does present is particularly feeble and does not explain why the Russian Federation would have wanted Mr Skripal in particular dead, and at that particular time. Mr Skripal's recent activities indicate that there were others with possible motives to assassinate or incapacitate him. dmonished 2 February 2016 by his FBI handler. This was in vault dump. ..."
"... If Sergei was Steele's only "source" obviously his disappearance was essential. ..."
"... My first question is : who is protecting Chris Steele right now ? I think it´s MI6. But I don´t think that they are happy to be forced to do that. Maybe there was an order of UK government to hide Steele. Because he meddled in some other things not related to the Dossier, but to Cambridge Analytica and Brexit and Fifa and . ..."
"... Don't understand why standard clean-up operations for fentanyl poisoning are ignored here. it includes protective clothing and hosing down public areas where the fentanyl may be present. Sunday evening clean-up at Maltings was SOP for fentanyl. This is not mysterious. ..."
"... Moving from a fentanyl od diagnosis to an unknown agent occurred Sunday evening. SDH stated that in the announcements on Monday. ..."
"... I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all. Was it all just a PR exercise? Was he told to get himself to hospital on Tuesday morning so that the nerve agent story would have at least one other person involved. If he was feeling ill, why did he drive himself to hospital – he could have collapsed at any second! ..."
"... Two SDH physicians had a completed training in a highly specialized program at Porton Down shortly before 4 Mar. It's been hinted that one or both were on duty 4 Mar. ..."
"... Having followed your excellent blog for some weeks now, I've become convinced that there are four distinct elements to this affair: two opposing clandestine ops, an almost unbelievably idiotic false flag charade, and a random death:- ..."
"... 1. Operation 'Let's Keep Tabs on Sergei'. Run by MI5/6/SB to make sure their double agent doesn't come to any harm or become a triple agent. Electronic tagging, email monitoring, phone tapping, and friendly chats ever now and then. Worked well for years, then the wheels fell off on 4th March. ..."
"... 2. Operation 'Let's Extract Skripal'. Run by an unknown security agency but possibly contracted out to another. Deniable soft extraction so he could be wheeled out later to give evidence concerning the Trump Dossier, with or without his co-operation. The plan included his daughter, because she was needed to ensure Sergei said what he was supposed to say when the time came. Phase One carried out successfully on 4th March. Phase Two delayed by HMG playing silly games, but eventually mission was accomplished. ..."
"... 3. The 'Let's Blame Putin' Charade. When MI6 reported to its ultimate boss that an ex-Russian spy had been poisoned, Boris would have rightly assumed the culprits were probably Russian. But then, remembering how Lavrov humiliated him at that press conference in Moscow last December, he decided to make sure Russia did get the blame and take the rap for it. With the help of the new inexperienced Defence Secretary and others, he came up with a hastily and ill-conceived plan to show that the poison could have only come from Russia, ensuring Russia's guilt. The Home Secretary at the time, Amber Rudd, did not buy into it so had to be replaced, but others – including the overworked Theresa May – were taken in. The narrative quickly fell apart, but having persuaded the world and his wife of Putin's guilt, there was no going back. The hole Boris dug just got deeper. And all the evidence – or the lack of it – had to be destroyed. No wonder Boris resigned. ..."
When I began writing about the Skripal case, I was moved to do so by three main
considerations.
Firstly, I really am passionate for the truth, and whatever the truth happens
to be in this case, I strongly desire it to be made manifest. It was clear to
me fairly early on that this was not happening.
Secondly, I am also very passionate about concepts such as the rule of law,
innocent until proven guilty, and the apparently quaint notion that investigations
should precede verdicts, rather than the other way around. And so when I saw
accusations being made before the investigation had hardly begun, verdicts
being reached before the facts were established, I was appalled --
appalled that this was happening in what we British pride ourselves is the Mother
of Parliaments, and equally appalled that this meant the investigation was inevitably
prejudiced and – pardon the expression – poisoned from the off.
Thirdly, the incident happened to have taken place pretty much on my doorstep,
which made it of even more interest to me.
Nothing I have seen in the intervening time has persuaded me that my initial
impressions were wrong. In fact, the whiff of rodent I first detected has only
become stronger as time has gone on and the case has become -- frankly -- farcical.
Not only that, but the reaction to the case has been simply incredible. For
instance, the United States expelled 60 diplomats back in March, and more recently
they have effectively declared economic war on the Russian Federation – all
in response to unproven and inconsistent assertions of a botched assassination
attempt against an old spy in a quiet Wiltshire City. Such a response ought
to raise the suspicions of any sentient being that all is not what it appears.
I still do not have any clear idea of what happened on that day, but what
I am certain of is that the official narrative is not only untrue, but it is
manifestly inconceivable that it could be true. There are simply too many inconsistencies,
too many holes and far too many unexplained events for it to be true. And whilst
part of me would dearly love to leave this wretched case behind for a while,
whilst it is still ongoing, and especially as it is now being used to push us
even closer to the brink of war (economic warfare is often a prelude to military
warfare), I find that hard to do.
What I would therefore like to do in a series of 10 short pieces over the
next couple of weeks or so, is attempt to expose some of the very many holes
in the official narrative. At the end of it, I may well put it all together
into one PDF, so that it can be sent somewhere, where it can be completely ignored
by those that matter. Enjoy!
"In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination
of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act."
For the purposes of this piece, I am not interested in her comments on capability
or intent, but simply what she describes as "the motive".
The first question to be asked is this: What exactly does she mean by "the
motive"? By including that definite article before the word "motive", she implies
that there is only one "motive" – the motive – and that only one party
– the Russian Federation – possessed this. Which is of course manifest nonsense.
She might at that stage have said that they possessed "a motive", but without
looking into what Mr Skripal was up to, and the contacts he had, she was in
no position to state that they had " the motive".
Imagine the following scenario: A farmer called Boggis is found shot dead
in his barn. It is known that a week earlier, he had a very public quarrel with
another landowner, Bunce, about the boundaries between their lands, and that
the two of them had to be separated before they came to blows. Could it be said
of Bunce that he had "the motive"? Well, it would be reasonable to suggest that
he had "a motive", but without looking into other circumstances and other characters
connected with Boggis, it would be disingenuous to claim that he had "the motive"
as if only he might have had one.
As it happens, Boggis had been committing adultery with the wife of another
neighbouring farmer called Bean, and Bean had found out about this two days
before Boggis was found dead. What now? Does Bean have a motive? Very possibly.
So too might Boggis' wife. Perhaps even Bunce's wife. Who knows without examining
the facts more closely?
And so herein lies the first whiff of rodent. Mrs May asserted that the Russian
Federation possessed "the motive", implying that there was only one possibility,
which is something that could only be ascertained by proper investigation of
Mr Skripal, his circumstances and what he was up to. She therefore committed
what is a most basic fallacy in the investigative process.
The second question to ask is this: she says she set out "the motive" in
her speech, but what actually was that? Here is what she presented as the motive
in her speech:
"We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations
– and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets
for these assassinations."
This won't do. Firstly, many countries have records of conducting state-sponsored
assassinations, and not always against their own nationals. But secondly, the
claim that the Russian Federation "views some former intelligence officers as
legitimate targets for these assassinations" is not a motive. At best it is
a claim, but it is not a motive. A motive for an attempted murder, such as this,
would need to give a reason for carrying it out on that particular person at
that particular time. Simply saying that they view some former intelligence
officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations does not explain why
they are supposed to have decided to assassinate this particular man, at this
particular time, especially since they released and pardoned him in 2010. It
also does not explain why they apparently decided to wreck all possible future
spy swaps, since Mr Skripal had been part of such a deal, and assassinating
him would put an end to such deals.
But the most important question to ask is this: are there any other parties
with a possible motive for this crime? Even without a particularly careful investigation
of the details of Mr Skripal's life, contacts and circumstances, I can say assuredly
that there were. For instance, it is known -- although woefully unreported because
of a media ban -- that Mr Skripal was connected to the man behind the so-called
Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele. Personally, I am reasonably convinced that
Mr Skripal had a hand in putting this dossier together, given his connections
to Steele, and since it was almost certainly
authored by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" .
Might this give a
motive to some very powerful groups who are nervous about the origins and details
of this dossier coming to light? Yes, of course. Then why is it not a line of
possible enquiry? Answers on a postcard to the Department of the Blindingly
Obvious.
In summary:
Mrs May had no right to state that the Russian Federation had "the motive".
The best she could have said at that stage, without taking other possibilities
into account, was that they had "a motive". The motive she does present is particularly
feeble and does not explain why the Russian Federation would have wanted Mr
Skripal in particular dead, and at that particular time. Mr Skripal's recent
activities indicate that there were others with possible motives to assassinate
or incapacitate him. dmonished 2 February 2016 by his FBI handler. This was
in vault dump.
Fusion GPS only got contract from Hillary April 2016, who then subcontracted
to Steele.
But Steele was FBI asset prior to dossier being started. Was he an asset or
a feeder of MI6 disinformation into US politics/intelligence?
That McCain ended up giving the dossier to Comey, when that dossier was written
by a supposed FBI "asset" would indicate the latter. If Sergei was Steele's only "source" obviously his disappearance was essential.
"CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination process"
at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday morning,
after details of the attack became clearer."
But didn't Bailey drive himself in only because he said he didn't feel
well sometime on Monday evening?
@Jo. Yes, one version of the story says Bailey and two colleagues were checked
out at the hospital and then discharged, but that Bailey drove himself back
after feeling unwell and was readmitted.
I want to present my own thoughts on party A and B, that some posters here
have developed.
My first question is : who is protecting Chris Steele right now ?
I think it´s MI6. But I don´t think that they are happy to be forced to
do that.
Maybe there was an order of UK government to hide Steele. Because he meddled
in some other things not related to the Dossier, but to Cambridge Analytica
and Brexit and Fifa and .
MI6 has to hide the Skripals, too. The reason is simply to prevent that
Steele, Miller and the Skripals will ever be interrogated by the Trump fraction.
The dodgy dossier became a heavy burden on the UK Government since Steele
became known as the author.
It is an open secret that the UK Government has secretly done everything
possible to prevent Trump's presidency. Who knows what else will come to
light ?
In another post I had mentioned the role of Alexandra Chalupa and her
Ukraine connection. She's an ambassador to the Ukraine for the DNC.
Chalupa collected dirt on Paul Manaford for a long time.She emailed DNC that she'll share sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline"
including "a big Trump component that will hit in next few weeks" (which
never happened, at least by Alexandra Chalupa).
Then her private Yahoo email account was hacked and a few days later DNC
fired Chalupa. WHY ? Maybe because DNC needed to keep her activities off-site,
where a FOIA can't touch them ?
But what happened on the very day Chalupa is fired ? Oh, Christopher Steele
is hired. What a coincidence.
And what happens FIVE DAYS after Christopher Steele was hired ? Oh, he publishes
his first report on his dossier, a report that discusses FIVE YEARS of investigation.
I mention Chalupa, because I strongly suspect that much of the Trump
dossier goes back to Chalupa's research. These, in turn, are based largely
on information provided by the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU.
The DNC wanted to use this information against Trump, but they couldn´t
use Chalupa as the source. So the idea was born to hire Steele for the job.
Outsourcing.
The FBI has probably contacted its loyal vassal MI6 and discreetly referred
to "common interests".
Steele then changed the dossier to obfuscate Chalupa's authorship. But he
made decisive mistakes.
One mistake may have been to involve Sergei to some extent.
So I'm assuming that FBI and MI6 have a common interest in preventing
Steele, Miller and the Skripals from speaking.
Maybe MI6 contacted Sergei some time before and offered him to change his
identity. But Sergei refused. However, he was now alarmed and made plans
to return to Russia.
A dilemma for FBI and MI6. They now had to find another way to prevent Sergei
from speaking.
The idea of a Russian nerve agent was born. That killed two birds with one
stone.
Who executed the plan ?
FBI alone
MI6 alone
FBI and MI6 together
A third party that was willing to support the plan. This third party could well be from Ukraine. They hate Russia, they feared
that their share of the Trump dossier could come to light.
Moreover, in the West, they can not distinguish well between Ukrainians
and Russians if the perpetrators were unmasked.
Moreover, various sources, including the German BND, have pointed out that
Ukraine may still have Novichok stocks.
Bailey's job was to shadow the Skripals and report it. But he knew nothing
of the plan.
I think, the attack itself happened in or around the Mill Pub and Bailey
witnessed it.
However, I have no idea if the attack was done open or hidden.
I guess hidden. Something contaminated was being smuggled into the red bag,
perhaps already in the Zizzi, which the Skripals then discovered, wondering
how it came in the bag, and what both were touching.
Bailey was contaminated later, when he touched the same item (maybe a perfume
in gift wrapping) inside the red bag ?
In the run up to and including the war of the Iraq II WMD Debacle, Mi6
were fractured, even the bosses Dearlove and Scarlett that were running
their own pro Blair operations in conflict with the rest of the service.
Dearlove and Scarlett had their own objectives which were not comparable
with each other (personal and professional but mainly personal) or the rest
of their service.
Mi6, Mi5, DiS (or whatever they are all called now) with GCHQ have their
own infighting and conflicts of interest; within themselves, their sister
services, commercial / pension interests and those of the government ..
And of course what is in the best interest of the nation. (the police forces
are inconvenient uneducated, unfocussed rabbles that get in the way if they
involve themselves in anything more than issuing speeding fines)
Add to that Ministers fighting each other, Labour MP's trying harder
to bring down Corbyn than May, the Israeli and US interests ever present
wherever you look.
And top that with the US shambolic lessons to all other developed governments
in the world and the examples they display of their own decorum. Clinton
v Trump. FBI v CIA. (How many intelligence services are there? How many
agendas have they got?) And the Sickly twisted occultist hand the CIA has
in global drug production / distribution, unmetered oil windfalls, blackmail
scams (honey traps, murder, vice, paedophilia). An organisation with limitless
wealth and income streams, zero conscience, morality or single objective
other than to control the surf / goyim / proletariat. No objectives other
than to invoke misery, pain, suffering and death with crime, wickedness,
fear and perpetual global wars so the elite can remain that way and enjoy
their rewards.
And we wonder why Salisbury happened, what it is about, who is doing
something about it, why are they lying and covering up, who is to blame?
Sputnik makes an unfortunate choice of words in trying to paraphrase the
Guardian article:
"The spokesman for Salisbury district hospital, where Charlie Rowley was
taken, told The Guardian that *none* of the hospital's patients was receiving
any nerve agent-related treatment at the moment."
The Guardian article actually says,
"The hospital said it could not speak about individual cases but stressed
it was not treating anyone for the effects of novichok poisoning at the
moment."
So, nine, not nether.
More interesting is that the truth of the strained relationship between
Charlie and his brother is becoming more apparent. A mutual friend told
me a few weeks back that Charlie was estranged from his family by choice.
Hearing that put a very different perspective on his brother's effusively
confusing statements to the press.
Regarding the family relationship, when Charlie was in court for drug dealing
last year (?) he was additionally charged with stealing Ł2,000 (I think
that was the amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley. So I too remain to be convinced
of the 'brotherly love'.
" he was additionally charged with stealing Ł2,000 (I think that was the
amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley". That, to me, is a very odd fact. We are
told that Charlie is a drug addict on his uppers (i.e. skint), yet he had
Ł2000 that his brother (perhaps with an underlying motive to put Chalie
on cold turkey – oh, wait, oink, , flap, , oink, , flap, ) sought to relieve
him of responsibility for it.
As to the mangling of the message mentioned by lissnup, both the Guardian
and Sputnik would probably have got the original story from PA, following
which they would then have put their own brand of spin on it.
The identity of the Skripals in contained in the witness statements – those
who were present at the time and clearly saw them:
FEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene
has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting
and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman,
who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said
she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried
she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
She clearly states that she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a
bench, vomiting and fitting and that she had lot control of her bodily functions.
I don't know of anyone who has the ability to spontaneously evacuate their
bladder and bowl at will, more especially a female in front of a crowd on
onlookers. The doctor put her in the recovery position, that means on her
side, so there would have been visible evidence of Yulia having lost control
of her bodily functions.
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV],
personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a
bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs.
"It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's
been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and
he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just
drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people
here so I just thought they were homeless."
Freya Church clearly identifies them, "It was a young, blonde and pretty
girl and it was definitely the man that's been pictured in the news – the
guy that's a spy." She also says "I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay", so she had a clear view of their faces.
Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre,
said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the
bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in
the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure.
It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was
raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
She says "It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them
over them." so these too would have had a clear view of the Skripal's faces.
Not one of these people, or the other witnesses, has come forward to
say it wasn't the Skripals, unlike DS Bailey, they are not subject to a
gagging order by way of the The Official Secrets Act.
All these witnesses would have assumed they were the Skripals because the
media claimed that they were. So did the Wiltshire police at least, at that
time. This is not of evidential value.
Freya Church has been proven to be an unrelaible witness. Destiny Reynolds
may not have had a clear view of their faces at all, especially as she said
that there was quite a lot of commotion, and "There were a lot of people
crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting
them over them." How far away was she?
I'm also suspicious of that anonymous 'female nurse'. I had read that
this first responder was a 'male nurse' too. Apparently, s/he was a military
nurse, and had had experience with the African Ebola outbreak. S/he apparently
spent 30 minutes with the Skripals! Was it her who made the original emergency
call?
Besides, descriptions differ. CCTV evidence has been suppressed, and
that alone suggests that they were not the Skripals, and so does the police
interest in the Market walk footage. So, no, I'm not at all convinced.
I've not read any posts here since last night, so this post must be read
bearing that in mind.
I briefly replied to John Bull's four points, but I'd like to say more
on this. His first point related to the surveillance op being conducted
on Sergei. I said more or less that this would have been standard procedure
in this type of case, and the work would have been carried out by MI5 watchers.
In 2006 Special Branch was merged with the Met's Anti Terrorism Branch to
become the Counter Terrorism Command, and I'm pretty sure that DS Bailey
would have been seconded to that organisation, and that he was Sergei's
'front-line' case officer. His roles would be to protect Sergei (an SIS
asset) and to pass on intelligence to MI5's regional liaison officer at
Bristol.
Now John Bull was assuming that those involved in this operation were
one of two competing parties. The second party being covered in his second
point. This is where I disagree. I don't count MI5's role here as being
one of the two parties, for it is at least theoretically neutral.
The other party is not neutral, and that is MI6. It is MI6 who were (and
still probably are) acting in competition with the unknown group. Both groups
were involved in planning a their own Skripal operations prior to 4th March.
Let's call this unknown group, Group X – This shadowy group represents certain
US political interests.
This is what I said in my original post (19th at 3.50pm) that first brought
the dual-party theory into the light:
"Let's suppose [the film] was their source of poisoning inspiration.
Let's also suppose that two competing groups became involved at different
stages. Let's say there was a pre-planned, well-organised operation prepared
by group A, but when group B somehow learnt of it, a hurried attempt was
made by group B to scupper group A's plan – which might have failed. Just
speculation, but it would account for many anomalies. These two groups could
be two different intelligence agences, or one of them possibly being a rogue
faction within an intelligence agency".
This remains the bare bones of my theory, and I was deliberately being
rather coy about it at the time. Of course, another party that quickly became
involved in all this is the British parliament itself, and I suspect that
MI6 sought urgent advice from government ministers when they realised Group
X's intentions. (They would have only given them information on a need-to-know
basis). MI6, wanting to protect their assets as well as Britain's interests,
attempted to neutralise Group X's plan at short notice. It was the hurried
nature of all this, along with extreme political pressure, that caused mistakes
to be made. Secret heated discussions between the US, UK and *French* governments
have no doubt been going on about this situation ever since 4th March.
I could say much more, but for now, I'll try and catch up with a long
backlog of posts !
Competing groups might explain the 15:47 CCTV image if it was indeed Sturgess
and Rowley, not the Skripals. If the Skripals were to be whisked away alive,
a couple who could be mistaken for them, walking in a direction away from
the point of disappearance and after it could be used, should the need arise,
to deflect from the real circumstances by Group A. However, Group B, hastily
interfering with Group A's plan, causes a public scene, making the red herring
couple a liability instead of an asset – which might explain the release
of the footage (part of Group A's original plan) but the lack of an appeal
for help by local authorities (because the plan was FUBAR, making the pre-planned
release of the CCTV footage a mistake).
Miheila, I am not surprised to hear MI5 are in Bristol.
Two other odd occurrences doing to mind. The cricketer Ben Stokes' charging
decision being inexplicably sent to London.
Thanks Noone very interesting. I signed this too, about ending the 'special
relationship', (which in my opinion was toxic and one-sided ever since it
began):
https://action.larouchepac.com/declassifyukdocs
Brexiteers go on so much about 'British sovereignty', yet they ignore
the fact that Britain has effectively been a vassal of the USA for decades.
I'm not saying Kier Prichard did it on his own, and the Met have their burden
to carry, but what this man has achieved in such a short time is truly breathtaking.
Wilts police are now a laughing stock, not just in Salisbury or Wilts
but the UK and internationally. The public trust level must be as low as
it can possibly get. The rank and file must be suffering humiliation, worthlessness,
shame and depression. Motivation must be zero.
What a jerk, why do that to yourself, your reputation, your family, your
colleagues, your force of 20 20 years ? Is he really that thick, so stupid
that he couldn't see this coming and when he did he had a chance to say
enough is enough or is that side of his character so flawed that he is either
too cowardly or just unaware of what people think of him?
"ACC Pritchard said: "I have a huge sense of pride taking over the reigns
as Temporary Chief Constable for a force I have served for more than 20
years.
At least Basu has had the good grace to keep his mouth shut and go into
hiding.
I can't see how he (and others ) can avoid criminal prosecutions but
it won't be long until the civil prosecutions begin which will cost the
tax payers dear. But those who are involved can expect (if they do manage
to stay out of jail) to now spend much of the rest of their lives fighting
litigation
They brought it on themselves and unfortunately us but none more so than
Dawn.
Justice for Dawn!
"Mike has been a fantastic leader and he leaves us in great shape – both
in terms of engagement amongst officers and staff and, externally, as evidenced
in our strong Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services (HMICFRS) gradings.
"We are blessed with outstanding officers, staff and volunteers across
our organisation who achieve great things every day and who strive to provide
an excellent service to all of our communities.
"Now is the time to look forward and to continue, as we've always done,
with our values and communities at the heart of everything we do.""
Peter, They are all useless. It seems to be the only qualification needed
these days. Now Jeremy Hunt is calling for more sanctions on Russia – this
simply proves that he is ignorant as well as useless.
For years Russia has been dedollarising; Russia will manage just fine
with more British sanctions (and American sanctions for that matter) and
the most damage will be done to British companies that will be shut out
of Russia – not because of anything Russia has done but because of what
their own idiotic government has done.
TPTB are cretins!
With immediate effect, I am starting a personal 'buy Russian' campaign.
If I find anything in the shops that is 'made in Russa', I will buy it in
preference to anything made in the EU. Every little helps!
Ditto. There is another country that I and my relatives never buy fresh
produce from, always going for South African or South American alternatives,
or – if they're unavailable – going without. I can't say publicly which
country as I might get a visit from the boys in blue!
CF
Alexander Goldfarb is/was a friend of Sergei Skripal, Alexander Litvinenko,
Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov.
Associated with George Soros :
Goldfarb was among the first group of Russian exiles in New York whom Soros
invited to brainstorm his potential Foundation in Russia. In 1991 Goldfarb
persuaded Soros to donate $100 million to help former Soviet scientists
survive the hardships of the economic shock therapy adopted by the Yeltsin
government.
From 1992 to 1995, Goldfarb was Director of Operations at Soros' International
Science Foundation, with many more Soros projects to follow.
Here is a chronology of Goldfarb's press statements.
One gets the impression that he has prompted TM how to argue.
March 6
Quote : Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Goldfarb said:
"The Russian secret services and the regime of Mr Putin had the motive and
the opportunity to do this. And they did it before. I mean, it's only natural
for any reasonable person to suspect them."
Mr Goldfarb, a close friend of killed dissident Alexander Litvinenko, said
he has a theory as to why Russia could be behind the latest alleged poisoning.
The microbiologist and activist said it is not a spy theory but instead
a political move.
He said: "It is a political motivation and it has to do with the elections
of the President, which will happen in Russia in about ten days from now
and the major problem for Putin is the turnout because his main opponent
has been barred from participating and he has called for a boycott of the
elections.
"So Mr Putin is worried there are few people who come people who are apathetic
in Russia so this will be used regardless of whether Putin did it or not.
"He has a way to invigorate his nationalistic and extremely anti-western
rhetoric."
Mr Goldfarb said the "majority" of Russians would perceive the "poisoning"
as the right thing to do as they view Putin as a leader that can "get his
enemies wherever they are across the globe."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/927751/Russian-spy-poisoned-Salisbury-London-Alexander-Litvinenko-Sergei-Skripal-Putin-spy-swap
March 8
Quote : Former-spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter and a policeman have been
poisoned in Salisbury in what is suspected to be a state-sponsored hit.
But it is not the first time this has happened as Alexander Litvinenko,
who was former Russian secret service officer who defected to the west,
died in November 2006 after he drank tea laced with radioactive polonium-210
at the Millenium Hotel in Mayfair.
His friend Alex Goldfarb appeared on Newsnight to warn that it was the inaction
from the UK on the Litvinenko murder which led to the recent suspected attempted
assassination.
Mr Goldfarb said: "For 10 years the British Government refused to admit
that the Litvinenko murder was a state-sponsored crime and up to the very
public inquiry which happened in 2016 they maintained this is just a regular
criminal matter.
"The moment an English judge ruled that it was a state-sponsored murder
and in all probability ordered by Putin David Cameron went on TV and said,
'we knew it from day one'.
"So they were trying to keep it quiet to not to annoy Putin and they invited
other attacks like this.
"If the response now will be the same, only words without any actions, there
will be a third and a fourth attempt."
He added: "I would pick the Putin theory because he is the only one who
had a motive and an opportunity too and he has been shown beyond any reasonable
doubt to be involved in the previous assassination – I mean Litvinenko who
was my friend.
"He has a motive. His motive is the elections which are coming in about
10 days and there is a very low turnout expected and he needs to energise
his nationalistic, anti-western electorate."
"So, he wants to portray himself as a tough guy who can get his enemies
anywhere in the world and who has been presenting himself as the only thing
that is protecting Russia and the Russians from the plotting and the scheming
of the west."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/928729/bbc-newsnight-russia-spy-war-bbc-news-Sergei-Skripal-assassination-latest-Putin
March 17 DailyNewsUSA
Quote : Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic
of Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwpV7n-rLTU
March 18
Quote : Police insist they have discovered no connection between the strangling
of former businessman Nikolai Glushkov, 68, at his London home last Monday
and the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury
a fortnight ago.
But Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic of
Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits.
Mr Goldfarb told BBC Radio 4: 'There is no connection in a forensic sense
probably, but if you look at the larger picture of politics, I am convinced
that no murder of this sort could have happened without the personal approval
of Putin or some of his immediate deputies.'
Mr Goldfarb was also close to former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who
was murdered with radioactive polonium-210 in London, and exiled tycoon
Boris Berezovsky, who was found dead at his Surrey home in suspicious circumstances.
'All of these in my view have the common denominator of Mr Putin flexing
his muscle,' said Mr Goldfarb, a scientist who lives in New York.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5514213/Murder-Putin-critic-linked-Skripal-nerve-agent-attack.html
Could you elaborate on those similarities please? I've had a look but didn't
see any. The CCTV footage is terrible quality but what "image" I get does
not coincide with available photos of Glushkov.
Goldfarb is certainly a person to be avoided – with friends like that
who needs enemies? Litvinenko's dad suspects Goldfarb was his son's assassin.
The claim is made in that youtube video that Goldfarb was Skripal's friend
as well. It would not be a surprise but it would be good to obtain confirmation.
I agree, Liane, and have commented here about it. Glushkov has a young,
pretty, blonde daughter. I am not sure if it was the same daughter who reportedly
discovered his body.
"I would like to reassure you all that Nick is receiving medical intervention
and care from highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these
matters."
Why did Pritchard say "highly specialist medical practitioners experienced
in these matters" instead of something less specific? Who are these "highly
specialist" and "experienced" practitioners? The medics at SDH were quite
humble in the Newsnight programme – I am sure none of them would regard
themselves as 'highly specialist and experienced' in treating a nerve agent.
JOBS HOMES MOTORS Book an AdBusiness directory Local Info DatingExchange
and Mart
NewsJobsSportYour Say
9
MENU
NEWS5th JuneKier Pritchard says DS Nick Bailey poisoned at Skripal house
Exclusive by Rebecca Hudson @JournalRebecca
EXCLUSIVE
Dt Sgt Nick Bailey.
DETECTIVE Sergeant Nick Bailey was poisoned with a nerve agent when he
and other officers attended Sergei Skripal's home looking for evidence including
signs of drug use or suicide notes.
9
Chief Constable Kier Pritchard told the Journal he had watched evidence
from body-worn cameras used by officers who first attended the scene on
March 4, and that their response to the incident was "first class".
"We would not have known from those first hours what we were dealing
with. At that time we didn't know, and why would they, if there was anything
other than a medical incident, or something that was drug-related or something
more sinister," he said.
CC Pritchard said DS Bailey was one of a team of officers who attended Mr Skripal's home in Christie Miller Road, after the Russian former-spy
and his daughter were found slumped on a bench in the city three months
ago.
He said officers were looking for information to establish a timeline
of events and explain why the Skripals had fallen "gravely ill", as well
as making sure there was nobody else affected.
"That [information] could be a suicide note, it could be evidence of
drugs, it could be evidence of some form of substance," CC Pritchard added.
And he said DS Bailey (pictured) and his family are still receiving support
from Wiltshire Police.
CC Pritchard said: "Nick has been to Wiltshire Police headquarters, he
came in last week and that was a very positive step forward.
"This has been a long three months for many of us can you just imagine
the impact on your children and your wife and your family life when all
you're trying to do is your job? My heart absolutely goes out to Nick and
his family over all that they've suffered."
CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination
process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday
morning, after details of the attack became clearer.
And, following that, Wiltshire Police set up a "welfare cell" to help
affected officers understand and work through the psychological effects
of the attack.
"We have supported over 90 members of our staff in either one to one
sessions or group meetings," CC Pritchard revealed. "Of course one of those
90 will be Nick Bailey".
CC Pritchard shared his pride in Wiltshire Police, and the citizens of
Salisbury, for their response to the "colossal events".
"We [Wiltshire Police] have the ability and the confidence to be able
to deal with international and global issues. I hope that provides real
confidence to the public of how proud they can be.
"And I want to put on record how proud I am of the community of Salisbury.
They have demonstrated the true brilliance of a community.
"Despite a global issue, and despite the massive impact, the way the
Salisbury general public has responded has been exemplary."
'Spacemen' in The Maltings on Sunday evening officers at the scene underwent
a "decontamination process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on
Sunday and into Monday morning
Why would that be? SDH suspected a nerve agent by 6am Monday morning,
not Sunday evening.
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on
Sunday would have been prior knowledge but if someone had prior knowledge
and did not ensure that ALL emergency responders were protected, that would
not just be negligent
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on
Sunday would have been prior knowledge
Yes and no. Don't understand why standard clean-up operations for fentanyl
poisoning are ignored here. it includes protective clothing and hosing down
public areas where the fentanyl may be present. Sunday evening clean-up
at Maltings was SOP for fentanyl. This is not mysterious.
Moving from a fentanyl od diagnosis to an unknown agent occurred Sunday
evening. SDH stated that in the announcements on Monday.
Liane, it wasn't just protective clothing it was the full 'moonsuit' but
not everyone wore one. When I mentioned prior knowledge, I was thinking
of Rob's idea that British intelligence might have got wind of an FBI/CIA
plot to use an agent from Porton Down. If there been any prior knowledge,
then allowing any first responders to be at the scene not wearing full hazmat
gear, would have been a crime in itself.
Remember that Kier Pritchard had his first day on duty on March 5. Maybe
he was not well informed about Bailey´s part in the case.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has taken over from Mark Rowley
as the new Assistant Commissioner responsible for leading counter terrorism
nationally on March 5.
March 1 a new temporary assistant chief constable has been selected at Wiltshire
Police. ACC Craig Holden joined Kier Pritchard.
So who was Bailey´s supervisor on March 4 ? Deputy Chief Constable Paul
Mills ?
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all. Was it all
just a PR exercise? Was he told to get himself to hospital on Tuesday morning
so that the nerve agent story would have at least one other person involved. If he was feeling ill, why did he drive himself to hospital – he could
have collapsed at any second!
If it was a bit of LARPing, that would at least explain why he didn't
need a tracheostomy.
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all.
My guess is that he wasn't. He felt ill and as instructed went to the
hospital on Tuesday to get checked out. Game was on at that point; so, he
was put in a bed for observation and not allowed to leave. Drugged. That
would be surreal, wouldn't it?
As I followed this segment in real time, there was a sense of elation
in the media that they had a third victim. A first responder. Then they
scrambled trying to explain what a DS would have been doing at Maltings;
so, they switched it to he was at the house. Then there were questions as
to why it took so long for the alleged poison to effect him. Somehow that
got dropped as they continued to make different claims about where he'd
been; finally settling on both Maltings and the house.
Paul and Marie, if Bailey was not poisoned the OPCW has to lie !
They took blood samples of all three on March 22. After that Bailey was
released.
I´m convinced that Bailey was poisoned with the same nerve agent, whatever
agent that might be.
The OPCW did not lie – but they were deceived. The OPCW says they checked the identities of the individuals they tested
against IDs. How hard would it be for the government to issue a passport
on the 'name' of Nicholas Bailey?
This raises the question again of how the OPCW acquired the samples they
took away with them. As I understand it the OPCW scientists who came to
the UK are not clinically trained – they are effectively lab technicians
– so they do not have the training to "take" samples from patients. They
are reported as "collecting samples" but to my knowledge from reading other
reports and articles it was UK medical staff who "took" the samples – and
then handed them over to the OPCW. Even if they took the samples in front
of the OPCW, I bet at some point they said something along the lines of
"Oh hang on a minute, I just need to go and put labels on these phials back
in a minute".
Two SDH physicians had a completed training in a highly specialized program
at Porton Down shortly before 4 Mar. It's been hinted that one or both were
on duty 4 Mar.
But Bailey did not check in until 6 March. Were PD specialists there throughout?
Why didn't they just take the patients to PD instead of risking contaminating
a public hospital?
I recall reading at some point that Bailey drove himself to SDH on Monday
morning. Try as I might, however, I couldn't find it again. I know there
is a comment on MoonOfAlabama mentioning the same thing but it does not
have a link.
Then Mark Urban said in the Newsnight programme that Bailey drove himself
there on Tuesday morning .
Those were not PD specialists but SDH physicians that had received PD
training. That might be in addition to PD scientists that SDH spokespersons
have said were there as well. So, plenty of professionals focused on nerve
agent poisoning could have been there during the first 36 hours.
SDH had a whole new unoccupied wing they could have commandeered to isolate
the patients. Also to keep regular SDH staff and their eyes away from the
patients as well. Wouldn't that be preferable to transporting them to PD
with so many eyes watching?
But that was my original point. A training course does not make anyone:
"highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these matters" Where does the 'experience in the matters' come from?
I'm posting this reply to Max_B here because this is the second time that
there's been no 'reply' option to his posts. No idea why, but the blue word
inthe corner is missing.
If you really "don't care", Max_B, then why on earth are you making such
a fuss over it ? I do care. And after accusing me of getting my facts wrong
(over Lavrov) you apologise to newcomer (Новичoк) Cherrycoke only when s/he
corrected you. Maybe you forgot.
Anyway, you say: "Fentanyl's and Carfentanil *are* nerve agents, I understand
you want to rely on a much narrower definition of nerve agent that only
includes Organophosphates, but that definition is just not accurate".
In your opinion only; not professional opinion which has for decades
treated organophosphate agents as nerve agents, and fentanyls as (narcotic-analgesic
type) incapacitants.
You said, "The substance responsible for the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents
isn't an Organophsophate, that's why they are scrabbling around for a redefinition".
I agree with this, although we are only surmising that the Salisbury/Amesbury
substance is not an organophosphate (due to symptoms), for no-one has actually
specified its nature. And yes, I can see that they are scrabbling around,
and so are you ! Fair enough. But how can this explain why nobody has officially
specified what this chemical is ? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. Why
can't they simply be open about its nature and honest about their scrabbling
?
Yes, of course opioids depress the CNS, but so do lots of substances
such as alcohol, and, yes Peter, even axes ! This does not make them nerve
agents for they do not inhibit acetylcholinestaerase – crucial to the definition.
Wikipedia: "Nerve agents, sometimes also called nerve gases, are a class
of organic chemicals that disrupt the mechanisms by which nerves transfer
messages to organs. The disruption is caused by the blocking of acetylcholinesterase".
I perfectly understand the argument over BZ versus Carfentanyl, but surely,
rather than redefine the latter as a nerve agent, why not simply redefine
it as an opioid chemical weapon ? Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides
are officially (and biochemically) nerve agents, but they're not chemical
weapons. In the same way, most opioids are not chemical weapons but some,
such as the fentanyls should be. Salisbury has highlighted this failing,
hence the scrabbling about.
To include certain opioids as nerve agents (rather than opioid CW's),
then the official, long-established and generally-accepted scientific definition
must be changed which would only invite more confusion.
Agreed.
Opioid receptor agonists are not nerve agents.
However, if carfentanil was suspected then unprotected contact with the
victims would not be the protocol.
The true first responders were the heroes.
Unless they knew enough ahead of time to not be afraid.
"The true first responders were the heroes."
And they were who ? By the testimony of some who were aware of them (i.e. the unfeeling Freya
Church) just walked on like The Good Samaritans they most certainly are
not!
Perhaps there was an assumption that in an, allegedly, druggie infested
town like Salisbury, most people would ignore the histrionics of the pair
on the bench and walk on, leaving it to 'the first responders' to deal with
it. Convenient, if it worked.
If, and it is an if, the lady doctor and the nurse rushed to give the two
prone figures first aid without considering their own safety then these
two are the only heroic ones in this shambles.
As of 4 Mar, there has been no known fentanyl overdose in Salisbury. First
responders would have been trained in what to look for and how to proceed
in a fentanyl od situation, but practice makes perfect. There's not that
much difference in the emergency response protocols for fentanyl and carfentanil.
The difference is in the medical treatment in the hours and days after the
first couple of hours, and symptoms, treatments, and responses rather than
tests for the presence of carfentanil is the guide for physicians.
Rob, you are a great one for making lists of questions. You may have this
one on a list already:-
If HMG knew that Russia had declared death to all traitors, what measures
did they take to protect Sergei Skripal, a confirm traitor but also a member
of our security services. And why were those measures so lamentably unsuccessful?
Listen to Javid. The UK has never said what happened, (that's why we
have the Blogmire) and I don't recall ANY Russian account, other than denial
and show us evidence.
Glen needs to improve on his nodding skills. He is about three seconds too
slow.
Time and practice will no doubt improve this.
Having followed your excellent blog for some weeks now, I've become convinced
that there are four distinct elements to this affair: two opposing clandestine
ops, an almost unbelievably idiotic false flag charade, and a random death:-
1. Operation 'Let's Keep Tabs on Sergei'. Run by MI5/6/SB to make sure
their double agent doesn't come to any harm or become a triple agent. Electronic
tagging, email monitoring, phone tapping, and friendly chats ever now and
then. Worked well for years, then the wheels fell off on 4th March.
2. Operation 'Let's Extract Skripal'. Run by an unknown security agency
but possibly contracted out to another. Deniable soft extraction so he could
be wheeled out later to give evidence concerning the Trump Dossier, with
or without his co-operation. The plan included his daughter, because she
was needed to ensure Sergei said what he was supposed to say when the time
came. Phase One carried out successfully on 4th March. Phase Two delayed
by HMG playing silly games, but eventually mission was accomplished.
3. The 'Let's Blame Putin' Charade. When MI6 reported to its ultimate
boss that an ex-Russian spy had been poisoned, Boris would have rightly
assumed the culprits were probably Russian. But then, remembering how Lavrov
humiliated him at that press conference in Moscow last December, he decided
to make sure Russia did get the blame and take the rap for it. With the
help of the new inexperienced Defence Secretary and others, he came up with
a hastily and ill-conceived plan to show that the poison could have only
come from Russia, ensuring Russia's guilt. The Home Secretary at the time,
Amber Rudd, did not buy into it so had to be replaced, but others – including
the overworked Theresa May – were taken in. The narrative quickly fell apart,
but having persuaded the world and his wife of Putin's guilt, there was
no going back. The hole Boris dug just got deeper. And all the evidence
– or the lack of it – had to be destroyed. No wonder Boris resigned.
4. A Tragic Death. Four months after Skripal, a couple in Amesbury were
hospitalised for drug misuse; just two of the many cases SDH would have
dealt with during the year. But having been persuaded by HMG that the Skripals
had been poisoned with Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia, the local authorities
took no chances and assumed the two from Amesbury had been likewise affected.
HMG, desperate to keep their narrative alive, leapt on the incident to re-ignite
the anti-Russian rhetoric and claim Dawn's death was 'murder', 'a terrorist
act', 'a war crime' etc. etc. The narrative was even more idiotic than the
first one (a scent bottle in a litter bin for four months!) – and ironically,
it blew the gaff. They said Dawn was poisoned by the very same Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia
and died because she received 10-times the dose Skripal got. But we know
she took eight days to die. It could not have been Novichok.
Perhaps the police should stop trying to hunt down non-existent assassins
and investigate Boris Johnson. The crime? Misconduct in public office, which
carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
When I was writing my scenario below, I started to realise that rather
than satirical it could be factual.
Little Gavin might be working under that man who would be king's tutelage.
Gavin having told the Russians to shut up, does not do well under questioning.
'A tragic death'
If Salisbury and the aftermath was not already crazy, Amesbury hit new heights
of idiocy.
A woman was taken from a house with poisoning in the morning but others
in the house were not taken to hospital for observation.
Later the same day, the other occupant of the same house fell ill. Decontamination
tents were sent to the location but were not used. Instead police put the
second victim in an ambulance with no protection whatsoever.
Just watch this short video and ask yourself – what were the police thinking!!**??
Two days after Dawn and Charlie had been admitted to hospital, and as a
direct result of the Amesbury incident, Detective Sergent Erin Martin of
Salisbury CID took the " unusual step " of issuing an official warning
via Wiltshire Constabulary to " drug users " in south Wiltshire
"to be extra cautious" , . "We are asking anyone who may have
information about this batch of drugs to contact the Police", " where the
drugs may have been bought from, or who they may have been sold to."
John, you're poaching my theory ! The one I hinted at in an earlier post
(yesterday I think).
Like you, I'm convinced that two opposing covert ops are involved.
Your point 1. would be standard practice. Sergei would have been subjected
to discreet surveillance by MI5 watchers and GCHQ throughout his British
exile. Most likely heroic DS Bailey was his local case officer. But let's
not forget that Sergei was still working for MI6 and that Pablo Miller was
probably still his controller (line manager). There's a saying, 'once an
intelligence officer; always an intelligence officer' – a saying which certainly
holds true for many ex-SIS folk. It was his covert activities that lead
to your next point.
Your point 2. is more or less exactly what I had worked out myself, and
I'll be working on the finer details for some time yet.
Your point 3. is spot on too. This is the opportunistic 'political capital'
angle I mentioned in an earlier post.
Your point 4. I see this as a crude continuation of the above. A further
opportunity. Nothing more.
Eventually, we'll be joining more and more dots together. Good work,
John !
"Party A is British Intelligence, whereas Party B is perhaps some sort
of Trump supporting element of US Intelligence/military. The Skripals are
therefore currently under their protection. Have I got that right?"
Broadly yes; that is the bare bones of what I currently think.
You counter with:
"Party A would be FBI/CIA Intel with nerve agent from US part of Porton
Down, and Party B would be British Intelligence believe what Party A is
about to do is potentially disastrous, and so try to stop it."
I have two particular issues with that idea. I mention them, to see whether
they can be answered in a way that allows us to build a scenario around
your idea.
Firstly, when you say FBI/CIA, what you really mean is Cabal. The FBI/CIA
would be acting on behalf of HRC/DNC/Obama/etc. to remove an individual
who could expose them and throw light on their illegal activities – specifically
spying on Trump. Why would May/M_5/M_6 want to stop that? They are in exactly
the same boat and do not want their role to be disclosed either. Also Sergei
was nothing but an expense for HMG; they already had all the information
he was ever going to give them.
Ah, you say, British intelligence didn't like the idea of a nerve agent
being set loose in Salisbury. OK, well why not just have a word with the
FBI/CIA and agree to do it in a way that keeps everyone (except Sergei)
happy. I am sure that between FBI/CIA/M_5/M_6/HMG, there was something that
they could all agree would do the job and not threaten the whole of Salisbury.
Why not just get him at home?
But that isn't my biggest problem.
Secondly, Sergei was on British soil. If HMG/M_5/M_6 got wind of a plan
to kill him, why would they not just take him off the streets immediately?
Get him into protective custody. He had already been to the police to say
he was in fear of his life, so get him somewhere safe. Then there is no
need for any 'nerve agent' attack at all. The FBI/CIA might be a bit miffed
but Trump would not complain; he would say British intelligence did a great
job!
In this case, Bailey visits Sergei on Saturday morning and says: "Right
Sergei, go and get Yulia and then we will take you in. You will be safe
for the rest of your life. All you have to do is give me the SD card and
we will take care of the rest." Job done and it would have saved an awful
lot of ferreting around in rubbish bins ever since.
So if party A was indeed some black op of the FBI/CIA, why did party
B let it proceed right up to 4 March and then try to thwart it at the last
moment, instead of just killing it stone dead? If party B didn't stop the
FBI/CIA earlier and Bailey was sent in to save the Skripals, it rather looks
like they didn't get the SD card anyway
Good points Paul. For now, the only thing I'll say is with regard to the
second problem, which is this. It would all depend on when this plot was
discovered. If it was days or weeks in advance, then yes, you're absolutely
correct. But if it was some time on the morning or even early afternoon
of 4th March, then that would change things. And to be frank, even if there
was a "cover up" of a "cover up" it doesn't look like it was very well thought
through.
If party B discovered the plot on Sunday morning, they would have had
the whole day to find Sergei and take him in. Sergei wasn't trying to hide;
they would have found him easily on council CCTV. There would also have
been police cars all day outside Sergei's house, waiting for him and police
would have been crawling all over the city.
If party B discovered the plot at, say, 2pm and Sergei was not at home,
they still had options. Surely the police would have launched their procedures
for something like a bomb threat. The city would be closed off immediately
and police would have been everywhere. People would have been told to evacuate
the city and get to safety. Given 2 or 3 hours, procedures would exist to
minimise the risk to the general public.
Even if they only had one hour's notice, I can't see the police doing
nothing and allowing a nerve agent to be deployed.
I should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the Wiltshire
police were honest and did a proper job. Some very funny details emerged
very quickly by Monday evening they knew that this was a scam and on Tuesday
the Met was brought in to cover it all up.
I should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the
Wiltshire police were honest and did a proper job.
Agree.
on Tuesday the Met was brought in to cover it all up.
Disagree. The Met or Met CT was in the lead as early as 7:00 PM on Sunday
and no later than 9:00 PM. Publicly for the next day and a half SFD and
SDH referred to the Met as a 'partner,' but one of the local police seniors
did say on Monday or Tuesday that they were relieved of command on Sunday.
Okay – so what do you do with the subsequent statements from SDH/NHS that
have clearly stated that on Sunday evening, SDH contacted NHS "Radiation,
poison, etc." and NHS "Radiation, poison, etc" promptly contacted Met CT?
Did Met CT respond with, "We're busy with our tea and crumpets and it's
not our patch anyway?"
The Monday announcements were issued by SDH and hours later the SPD,
but we now also know that by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent and
Skripal had spread throughout several UK agencies. Do you seriously think
that SDH and SPD were in the lead that day? That referring to 'partners'
was a simple nicety?
Is there not even a semi-automatic communication link from SPD to Wiltshire
PD and the Met? Shortly after the incident, if we accept a Skripal neighbor
eyewitness, a SPD patrol car stopped at Skripal's house. That indicates
that Skripal has been preliminarily identified as one of the bench people.
Even if that eyewitness is wrong, nobody disputes that a team of police
arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM and by all
accounts gained access to the house and searched it. If the Met or Met CT
had any boots on the ground by then, they wouldn't have had enough to handle
the search on its own. So, of course, local police assets were involved
in this.
Do you think Craig Holden and Cara Charles-Barkwrote the statements they
read on camera on Monday evening? Statements that only covered the barest
of information,
You honestly believe that SPD operated exclusively on this matter from
Sunday evening until Tuesday?
Seemed to me that there was a bit of chaos at the law enforcement end on
Monday as they didn't get much done by that evening statement and when national
reporters were beginning to show up. SPD couldn't ascertain that a crime
had been committed. Was Met CT pushing for a crime? Somebody behind the
scenes with power sure was.
Boris had his script ready to go as soon as Rowley (Met CT) announced
that Skripal was one of the victims.
Marie, I don't know why you are ranting at me, all I did was post a link
– that is the official story! Anyway, just to correct a couple of things for you:
" police arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM"
No Bailey was there by 5pm.
" by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent"
No the buzz by 6am on Monday was about a former Russian spy. The news of
an unknown agent came later on Monday morning.
I find it helpful to be as precise as possible when so much possible evidence
is mushy or conflicts.
SPD has stated that the team of officers including Bailey went to Skripals
house Sunday evening. I don't recall that SPD has given the time of they
arrived. Skripals neighbors reported seeing several police cars and officers
at Skripals house at 7:00. As eyewitnesses aren't generally all that reliable
as to the precise time they observed something, I merely accepted 7:00 as
the earliest and allowed that it could have been as late as 8:00. Either
of which are good enough for a reconstructed timeline.
As to the report from one neighbor that a police car arrived at Skripal's
house at 5:00, there's no other evidence to support that. I'm sort of accepting
a 5:00-5:30 visit by a lone police car because checking on a home of a patient
whose identity would not have been firmly established at that point is sort
of what police do. I could have been Bailey, but I doubt it because it's
too routine. That person wouldn't have entered the house. Likely knocked
on the door and reported back that nobody was home. It's relevance for me
is that it gives a time as to when Skripal had first been identified as
one of the two possible patients.
Key Elements of the Hoax
(I say key because a big part of the Hoax has been to throw in distractions,
red herrings and a ton of irrelevant stuff to confuse and overload the story
– It is Not meant to be understood)
The Conflicting advice of Novichoks that Public Health England (PHE)
promulgated compared with that of the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on Nerve Agents (the OPCW hadn't put anything out
on Novichok specifically for the simple reason they didn't know anything)
The Director of Public Health England (PHE) Paul Cosford saying that
Novichok actually does take a minimum of 3 hours to take effect after contact
with a large dose
"If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into
contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum
(that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be
in touch with a large dose.""
PHE – Risk to public remains low (Despite being dead). "This Stuff" (Novichok)
take effect in not less than 3 hours IF you get a very large dose through
the skin
OPCW – Nerve Agents are deadly, the more toxic they are the deadlier
they are. They are designed to kill. Through Skin contact will present symptoms
in 20 – 30 mins, (inhalation much quicker)
No CCTV released by police.
Which would establish the actual Time Line rather than that of the Fake
Official Narrative.
It would establish what the Skripals looked like that day and what actually
occurred at the bench (the police don't want us to know either)
It could have saved the lives of the 3 children that Sergei gave bread
to in the park when he first arrived in Salisbury that day if the boys had
been poisoned by Novichok.
Bailey's Body Cam would establish what he did at the bench and Skripal
home.
The Government Lie that it was the Russians that did it and could only
have been them.
I have a tome which addresses means and opportunity, and when I can paste
it to the Blog you will hopefully see it.
I will still bang on about Skripals and only Skripals being the park bench
victims.
We know that they were in Zizzi's after the duck feed with the boys, then
onto the Mill Pub.
As many of the recent posts had pointed out the Mill Pub has lots of CCTV
footage and the police spent quite a long time interviewing the staff. (As
one does in a terror investigation.
The Telegraph was still reporting that the Mill Pub was the last port
of call before the park bench. I think that is true. However, TPTB want
us to "ignore" that location and focus on the Novichok that dripped from
Zizzi's table.
Why?
The US media has send journalists to Salisbury very early.
For example Ellen Barry, NYT. These journalists have influenced the official
narrative to a decisive extent.
He used the Snap Fitness CCTV to establish the „fact" that the Skripals
went from Zizzis through Market Walk to the bench.
Rob, just another false translation of what Putin said about traitors.
Listen to Moran´s interpretation at 2:00 in the video.
Quote : Vladimir Putin's held a town hall session and he was asked about
this five's that had been traded and he said, and this is almost a direct
quote : „They will kick the bucket. Trust me. They betrayed their colleagues,
their brothers in arms. And they took thirty pieces of silver and are gonna
choke on all that." [End quote]
At 3:00 Terry Moran shows the CCTV of Snap Fitness.
It´s outside at the right side of the entrance.
Noone & Liane:
Excellent articles, thanks.
I recommend everyone to watch the video on Liane's link: https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE
15 minutes well worth watching.
"Flat Earth New" by Nick Davies. It provides a plausible reason for the
phenomena where all the new media carry the same headline and column with
minor changes – it all comes from one source via a single feed that they
all subscribe to (the Press Association, or sometimes Reuters).
We keep talking about the "official narrative". But actually, what is
the official narrative and where does one find it?
I do try to keep up with events around the Skripal case. The media regularly
and frequently cite "sources", official or otherwise. But have there been
any actual authorized statements from the government containing anything
like an "official" version of the events? There was Theresa May's statement
to Parliament in March, but has there been anything since? If so, I must
have missed it (which is quite possible).
For sure there's a media narrative. The media keeps floating new stories
or bits of new information. But the media stories are often either self-contradictory
or just plain nonsensical. Does this amount to an "official narrative"? Is the "perfume bottle" official for example? Or the novichok in the
public toilets? Or are these only media stories?
I read in earlier posts that the police have issued an "official" timeline
(contradicting earlier eye-witness accounts). Is this the case? Is there
really a police timeline that one can look up in any official source, or
is it just another media story?
Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive
– that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition
request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been
officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?
I apologise if I'm talking rubbish here, but I have the impression that
there no such thing as an "official narrative" beyond what May told Parliament
in March. Everything since then has been media smoke and mirrors. Or an
I missing something?
I totally agree with you.
And it seems none of the media is inclined to pin down and demand the official
story.
It is to the government's advantage to allow the media to run with unnamed
sources to reinforce the Russia dunnit scenario, without themselves committing
to it
When I use the term "official narrative", which I do a lot, I am basically
referring to three simple claims:
That Sergei and Yulia Skripal, along with D.S. Nick Bailey, were poisoned
by a "military grade nerve agent" known as a Novichok.
That responsibility for this act lies with the Russian state.
That the poisoning took place at the home of Mr Skripal, specifically
by the application of the nerve agent to the handle of his front door.
The first two claims have been expressly made by Her Majesty's Government,
whilst the third one has expressly been made by those in charge of the investigation.
There are of course other sub-claims that form a part of this (such as
the day that Yulia and then Sergei were discharged from hospital) but these
three claims are substantially it.
The main problem with the first claim is that the Skripals are alive
and well. The main problem with the second is Russia is absolutely not the
only country or entity that could have produced the alleged substance. And
the main problem with the third claim is that it is a physical impossibility
that 2 people could have come into contact with the alleged substance, and
then collapsed at exactly the same time 4 hours later.
Everything else follows from those three basic, but demonstrably false
claims.
I agree with you completely, Rob, except for you saying that the Skripals
are 'alive and well'. In truth, we can't be sure of this. All we know for
certain is that Yulya was alive at the time the Reuters video was recorded.
I definitely agree with you. Almost nothing is "official" except that
Putin did it (whatever it was).
On your Point 3, what do we make of this post by CharlieFreak ?
I was discussing the 'door handle' theory with a relative about five or
six weeks ago and he was telling me that he had been listening to a BBC
Radio 4 'Today' interview with a Govt Security Minister the previous week
(Ben Wallace?) in which he was asked if Novichok residue had actually been
found by investigators on the door handle. According to my relative – who
has been following the case and assumed from all the publicity that nerve
agent residue had been found on the door handle – the Minister said it hadn't
but it was a plausible the theory they were working with. As I understand
it the interviewer then rhetorically remarked (without any obvious hint
of irony or incredulity) that presumably it was quite possible that the
'assassins' came back after seeing the Skripals leave the house and wiped
the door handle clean to remove the evidence!!
https://www.theblogmire.com/bbc-crimewatch-reconstruction-of-salisbury-poisonings-shelved/#comment-8643
Can this be? Not even the door handle is "official" ???
john_a,
"Is the "perfume bottle" official for example?"
Officially the Novichok was found in a "small glass bottle" in Charlie
Rowley's flat. No further details were officially given about the container.
It was Charlie who said that he had found a perfume bottle with a known
brand name, which Dawn sprayed on her wrists, and that the contents somehow
got onto Charlie's hands.
Nothing official as far as I know, except that the Hazmat guys searched
the public toilets in QEM park. Some tabloid published a ludicrous story
about Russia using that public toilet as a CW lab.
This has been said many times before, but it's worth repeating that the
police did not say when the Skripals visited the Mill pub, only that it
was "at some time after" they arrived at Sainsbury's car park in Salisbury
city centre. The police must have known more about the exact timing, since
they had plenty of timestamped CCTV footage available to them. 'Unofficially'
according to media reports, they went to Mill before they went to Zizzis,
but there does not appear to be anything to support that version of events.
– "Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive
– that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition
request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been
officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?"
I guess that this is the story that originated from the Press Association
that the Russian assassins were identified from CCTV images. Nothing official
about that, in fact the Security Minister called it "ill informed and wild
speculation". However, the BBC has treated the report very seriously.
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43643025
If the BBC continues to say that, it must have been leaked from some
senior official source that wants the public to believe it, even if that
source does not commit to it publicly.
– You ask in another post "Not even the door handle is "official" ???"
The British authorities have not explicitly stated that the Novichok
was found on the door knob, only on the front door: "Specialists have identified
the highest concentration of the nerve agent, to-date, as being on the front
door of the address.".
However, there have been various media reports that the nerve agent was
found on the door handle. Furthermore, Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK's national
security adviser stated in a publicly released letter that Russia had previously
tested the use of door handles as a way of delivering nerve agents.
Sedwill says "DSTL established that the highest concentrations were found
on the handle of Mr Skripal's front door. These are matters of fact." So
I suppose you could call that official.
My thesis: The Skripals did not walk through the Market Walk to the bench.
I want to substantiate this thesis:
We have two CCTVs of people that are NOT the Skripals :
15:47:43 Snap Fitness shows the couple with the red bag. First published
on March 6.
Cain Prince, 28, runs Snap Fitness.
16:08:00 Jenny's restaurant shows three people. First published on March
9.
Mustafa Dalangal, 57, runs Jenny's restaurant .
How did these two CCTVs find their way into the public ?
We know that the police didn´t publish a single CCTV. Why should they release
this two ?
No, it were some journalists who found the CCTV earlier than the police.
Look at this timeline of March 5 and 6 (Reporter Liam Trim) :
Monday March 5
6pm The BBC reports the man is Sergei Skripal, 66, an ex-military intelligence
colonel who was convicted in Russia of passing state secrets to Britain
7pm At a press conference Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Craig Holden
tells reporters it is not being treated as a counter-terror incident.
Tuesday March 6
09:07 The BBC named Skripal as the man who was found along with a woman
in her 30s, believed to be known to him, on a bench near a shopping centre
shortly after 4pm on Sunday.
09:37 Both supermarkets are open but there are national media providing
coverage close to the police tape.
10:34 Sergei Skripal, 66, was found slumped on a bench in Salisbury alongside
a 33-year-old woman, who the BBC understands is his daughter, Yulia Skripal.
10:53 The latest from the Press Association: „As CCTV believed to show the
pair in the moments before they were found slumped on a bench emerged, the
UK's top counter-terrorism officer, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner
Mark Rowley, said: "We have to be alive to the fact of state threats."
10:56 Freya Church, 27, the gym worker, from Salisbury, told the Press Association:
(..)
15:37 BBC home affairs correspondent sums up press conference
He's quite brutally frank here but it's true – we did not learn much from
that press conference.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salisbury-russian-spy-police-substance-1302045
I guess that Craig Holden in the evening of March 5 told reporters about
a man in his 60th and a woman in her 30th were the couple found slumped
on the bench. And I suspect he also mentioned the red bag.
This gave the Press Association the idea to look for the couple on private
CCTVs.
PA was looking for a couple with a red bag and they found it at Snap Fitness.
We know for a fact that PA found the wrong pair.
Had there been another couple on the CCTV with a red bag, then they would
certainly have copied it, too ! So there was no second pair with a red bag
in Market Walk at that time !
Later on March 6 the police arrived at Snap Fitness :
Quote : Snap Fitness manager Cain Prince, aged 28, said: "Police had a good
look at the footage and were interested in these two people. It was the
only image they took away."
Mr Prince added that police said Skripal was "wearing a green coat". [End
quote]
"Police had a good look at the footage" – so, the police too didn´t see
the Skripals in market Walk !
But they found it suspicious that there was a couple who also had a red
bag. So they took it away.
The Sun knew about the Snap Fitness CCTV and the red bag. Why did they
focus on another couple ? Was the red bag couple not on Jenny's restaurant
CCTV ? But they can not have fallen from the sky. I have no logical explanation
other than this : Certain media wanted to create the illusion that the Skripals
walked the Market Walk, although they didn´t.
Conclusion : Two different reporters have spotted CCTV. But no one has
discovered the Skripals. In short, the Skripals didn´t walk through the
Market Walk.
Liane, I think you are right. And why did the police take away that image
from Snap Fitness? Because it was the couple on the bench! When the police
searched the CCTV they knew what the bench couple looked like and that was
who they were looking for.
If it had been the real Skripals on the bench, why on earth would the
police have taken away CCTV of a random couple with a red bag, yet not bothered
to take any images of the Skripals?
"Yes Mr Cain, Mr Skripal was wearing a green coat but never mind about
that; I think I will have this picture of these two other people if that's
alright with you."
Another thought, this may explain the switch in the Mill/Zizzi or Zizzi/Mill
timeline. The CCTV couple were clearly not coming from the direction of
the Mill, they were coming from Zizzi.
As the police had made a mistake in releasing the CCTV image, they may
have switched the story round and said it was the Mill first to cover up
the fact that they had (ridiculously) issued a CCTV image of 2 otherwise
random people coming from the wrong direction. By switching it round perhaps
they thought it provided some cover for having issued images of people that
were not the Skripals and left the idea in everyone's mind that the Skripals
had come from the same direction.
Paul, both CCTVs were NOT released by the police but by the press !
This fact forced them to change the story.
Why on earth was the time when the Skripals were in Mill Pub never given,
neither by police nor journalists ?
Something very significant happened in the Mill. It had 12 CCTV cameras operating that day the recordings were all seized
by the police. The Manager was was treated as a terror suspect and interviewed by police
8 times in the first week of the investigation. The Skripals went to the Mill before Zizzis
"As further details of Col Skripal's movements emerged, a source close
to Greg Townsend, manager of The Mill, revealed that he served the Russians
last Sunday afternoon and had since been treated like a "terror suspect",
interviewed by police up to eight times last week.
He said The Mill had 12 CCTV cameras, covering the large open-plan bar
area as well as the upstairs balcony and lavatories overlooking it.
"The pub has obviously remained closed for more than a week and the cordon
widened, but Greg feels like he has been kept completely in the dark, they're
not telling him anything.
"He actually served them. He's had a bit of a time of it all and is a
pending terror suspect.
"He certainly said he's being treated like one. He's had around eight
police interviews.""
Sorry the Telegraph has the opposite to the "Official Narrative" (as it
was then)
"From the car park, it was just a short walk through The Maltings shopping
precinct to Zizzi, where they ate lunch before heading to The Mill pub for
a drink."
The "Official Narrative" was never changed on Dr Davies, the Duck Boys
park location, the cctv pair being one and the same as the bench people
And the Helicopter taking Yuia and / or Sergie changed 3 weeks l was
corrected later in the leading MSM news provider the Spire FM website.
The Official Narrative is a tool of the Hoaxer and because of its unreliability
it means Pants.
Independent Tested Evidence is what is forming the Facts, if they are
false they can easily be refuted abd corrected by New Evidence eg Mill and
Council CCTV
Peter, this prompted me to look at Mr Townend's Facebook page and there
was a link to a piece about his rabbits, which were locked up behind the
police cordon, with no food or water. But thanks to his raising of awareness
on social media, the police stepped in:
"Luckily, the Luckily, Wiltshire Police stepped into the rescue the rabbits
after pub manager's plea was shared more than 100 times across Facebook.
The force today tweeted: 'We have an update on the rabbits stuck at an address
in one of [the] cordons. They have now been given food and water and are
OK. Thanks for everyone's concern.'"
Sadly the cat and the guinea pigs at 47 Christie Miller Road were not
treated with the same care. "All animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal than others" it seems.
Or, possibly, 'all police are dumb, but some are dumber than others'.
Or, one could change 'dumb' to 'unfeeling', or 'callous', or some other
derogatory term.
The cat and the guinea pigs in the Skripal's house would have been raising
hell and the cat would have been trying everything in its repertoire to
get out. Then there's the defecation and urination, the smell must have
been quite ripe. So please tell me how the officers posted outside the Skripals
and Townsend's ignored all this without comment to their superiors?
No idea. The two things that baffle me about the whole incident are:
a) If you look at the photos of police officers standing near the house,
there are three windows that are open. I would have thought the cat could
have got through one of those, and there's probably a catflap on the back
door. The cat, if not the guinea pigs, could surely have gotten away.
b) Why on earth the authorities let on about the condition of the animals.
They're not above being economical with the actualite. Why then did they
not just say, "The cat and the guinea pigs are now safely residing at a
secure location. They do not wish to avail themselves of the services of
the RSPA, or Russian Embassy, and they ask that their privacy be respected."
The affair of the pets was only made public when the Russian embassy began
enquiring about them. Until then it was the Skripals' vet who'd contacted
the police about the pets, and this happened within hours of the poisoning.
Once it became public, the government had to come up with a plausible
cover story – claiming that DSB had found them on 4th March. I don't believe
this. The DEFRA vet allegedly involved was, as far as I know, never named,
and the best they could come up with was that the Persian cat, Nash van
Drake (brought over from Russia), had been found in a 'distressed' state,
taken to PD, humanely put to sleep and incinerated. No vet should euthanise
an animal simply because it is distressed. The guinea pigs (also from Russia)
had been found dead due to lack of food and water were also taken off to
PD. I don't believe this story. Rumours of a second cat, Masyanya, bought
in England, began to circulate and it was assumed that this cat had escaped.
Neighbours will know more.
I would like to think that all the pets survived and are now safe. This
may even be true if the Skripals had been 'disappeared' according to a pre-planned
operation. If so, the pets would have been moved elsewhere shortly before
the fateful day, or on that very morning.
HMG hadn't taken into account a second cat, because they weren't aware
of one, but there certainly were two cats and I have videos of them both.
The embassy were only aware of one cat and two guinea pigs, information
that I believe came from Viktoria. As for the rabbits and fish, another
later rumour, perhaps they had been taken away earlier too. The whole pet
story strikes me as very odd. Maybe Howard Taylor, the vet, knows more than
we do. He said, "We phoned the police on day one to offer to help if they
needed it. I thought it unlikely the police would have gone to the house
and not done anything."
On 17th March it was only reported that the animals had been taken away.
It was only on 6/7th April that HMG admitted that the guinea pigs were dead
and the had been suffering.
According to The Sun: Taylor said of Mr Skripal: "He was a nice chap
and we got on well. He never said he was in fear for his life. He used the
vets for some years and I had seen his cat and his guinea pigs." Note: only
one cat mentioned.
"We contacted the police straightaway upon hearing the news that Mr Skripal
had been admitted to hospital, and a number of times afterwards, to make
them aware of Mr Skripal's pets and their needs.
We contacted Porton Down – in case the animals may have been taken into
isolation. We also offered to take care of Mr Skripal's pets in his absence.
We were never contacted by the police or Porton Down in return regarding
Mr Skripal's pets".
If we believe this official story, then why haven't the RSPCA prosecuted
the police fotr animal neglect? I'm disgusted by the RSPCA's apparent lack
of interest in this affair. Their press officer, Nicola Walker said:
"It is very sad to hear that these animals have died in such tragic circumstances.
However, we appreciate the emergency services were working in extreme and
dangerous conditions in an incredibly fast-moving operation in an attempt
to keep the public safe. We don't currently know the details of what happened
but, as part of our ongoing working relationship with police, we would like
to see if there is any learning for future operations."
Suzanne Norbury, their South-West Press Officer came up with the same
wording, and:
"Emergency services working in extreme and dangerous conditions incredibly
fast-moving operation an attempt to keep the public safe'
I go along with this assessment: "It's a string of shallow excuses. It's
nonsense. And it comes, not from the police themselves, but from the royal
body supposed to prevent cruelty to animals".
This report may have been inaccurate, but nobody can claim that the existence
of the pets was not known as early as mid March. The family vet also raised
questions at an early stage. The report also shows that somebody thought
the animals were worth "testing".
To me, this is one of the most bizarre inconsistencies in the whole case.
Were the animals removed in mid March (alive) or early April (dead)? Why
are there two different and mutually contradictory stories? What possible
interest could be served by leaving the pets inside the house? And does
it really mean that the police or counter-terror guys never entered the
house before early April? After (supposedly) finding novichok on the door
handle?
What's going on here? Did somebody calculate that a heartbreak story
about starving pets would make us all hate Russia even more? If so, I suspect
it backfired badly. British people love pets, and the story really just
makes the British authorities look inhuman. Especially because it was the
Russians who raised the issue.
Or is the whole sorry saga of the pets just a symptom of the British
authorities losing interest in the whole affair and just trying to walk
away from it in embarrassment?
Also, do the Skripals know the fate of their pets? What have they been
told, and how did they take it?
As I wrote before, it looks like a punishment of Sergei. He really loved
his pets.
Or does anybody here has the impression, that the Skripals were treated
like innocent victims ?
Sterling work as always Paul, thank you.
The note was sent from Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr David Kelly
the week before he died. Beswick was a colleague of Kelly's at Porton Down
The writer of the letter was Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr david Kelly,
I don't know whether it was his own letter header (the crest and coat of
arms) or that of the CDE Porton Down but this seems to indicate it was his
own personal crest & Arms
"Frank's scientific work did not interfere with his enthusiasm for voluntary
work with the St John Ambulance, in which he was a senior figure. The promotion
to the rank of commander brother within the Order of St John in 1995 delighted
him and allowed him to design his own coat of arms. This included the badge
of the Chemical Defence Establishment and a heart, a nod back to his early
work in cardiac physiology."
I Hadn't realised before but Beswick and Kelly had worked on detoxing
the island of Gruinard together
"In 1979, following the closure of the Microbiological Research Establishment,
the small microbiology programme fell into his bailiwick and this stimulated
the work to rehabilitate the Island of Gruinard, which had been contaminated
with anthrax in the early 1940s."
Well, there's no heart in the arms on that letterhead so I can't see how
they can be the arms that Beswick chose for himself. Nor do I understand
why the crest is placed separately on the left. It's only the colour and
charges in the escutcheon (shield) that makes a coat-of-arms unique to a
particular family, individual or corporate body. In a sense, the rest is
mere traditional ornament – the supporters, crest, helm, motto
Yes, I saw that Hasbrouck one when I did a quick search, but the chevron
is not engrailed and the difference is crucial. It MUST be engrailed (the
internet is still not the best way to search for these things). By the way
the Hasbouck arms would is described as "Purpure, a chevron between three
flambeaus or, flamed proper", so our friend's arms would then be:
"????, a chevron engrailed between three flambeaus (not torches) or (probably),
flamed proper (probably)". I can't guess the field colour (????), and I'm
guessing the likely colours of the torches.
I had forgotten about Ross Cassidy and was checking him out again after
Miheila mentioned him for the list of people who know more that they are
saying and found this from Sky News March 28 2018
Mr Cassidy, 61, has spent many hours with counter-terror detectives investigating
the poisoning, but would not discuss the police operation.
Mr Cassidy got to know Sergei, his wife Lyudmila, his son Alexandr (who
was known as Sasha) and Yulia.
Sergei spent a lot of time out of the country and there were times when
I didn't see him, but he used to call me his English friend. He was very
generous and never forgot my birthday, usually buying me an expensive bottle
of whisky.
On Saturday 3 March, Mr Cassidy drove Mr Skripal to Heathrow to collect
Yulia, who had moved back to Moscow and was visiting her father. It had
been snowing and Sergei asked his pal if they could use his four-wheel-drive
pick-up truck.
Last week, in a court ruling about the Skripals' medical needs, a judge
quoted the consultant treating them in Salisbury district hospital: "The
hospital has not been approached by anyone known to the patients to enquire
of their welfare."
Mr Cassidy was upset by the suggestion there wasn't anyone who cared
enough to want to go and see the Skripals.
He said: "That is misinformation, because we care. I asked the police
several times if we could go and see them, quietly and away from the media,
but I was told quite categorically that we were not allowed. We asked the
question and the answer was 'no'.
"We were also upset that if his family and friends in Russia got to hear
about this lack of concern it would cause them extra anguish."
My questions:
Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation?
Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit him
in hospital?
Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei and
Yulia from having visitors?
If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge
that?
I'm glad you picked up on his name.
I included him, because outside the spook community, he's the only person
in England who appears to have known the Skripal family well – all four.
No wonder he was questioned for so long. I'll try to answer your questions as I see the situation. Just my opinion.
1.Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation? Because he'd been threatened with dire consequences if he did. Whatever
they were, they were most likely fabricated. 'National interest' springs
to mind as the justification.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit
him in hospital? Either because he wasn't there or because – later- they were afraid that
Sergei would speak. I suspect he was never there at all.
3. Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei
and Yulia from having visitors? Probably none of the SDH staff did.
4. If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge
that? SDH declined to be represented in court due to feeling 'uncomfortable'.
As I said in an earlier post, whoever that unnamed doctor was, he/she was
'highly unlikely' to be from SDH, but was rather an MoD 'specialist' brought
in from elsewhere – PD or a military hospital.
Ross Cassidy may not have been willing to talk to the media, but I'm
sure he said more to family and friends. Perhaps he'd be willing to talk
to an impartial investigator, but then he might be too afraid of the consequences
– which could have been direct threats to him or his family.
He needs to be asked about police activity and visitors at the Skripals,
Sergei's pets (including the alleged rabbits and fish, not to mention Manyúnya,
the cat who allegedly escaped), any concerns he may have had leading up
to the fateful day, and so much more.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit
him in hospital?
In the US and absent a signed directive by a patient that's either unconscious
or incompetent, only next of kin are allowed to visit the patient. So, it
would be the hospital that denies a friend access to a patient. No need
for police involvement on this matter in this case.
The police, naturally, were looking for information on the patients and
at any conceivable culprits. A double whammy for Cassidy.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't
allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this? If conscious and
talking, Sergei could ask to see any visitor he liked, but this didn't happen
– either because he wasn't there, didn't ask, had no friends or because
friends had been prohibited from visiting. We know RC had tried to, but
without success.
In normal circumstances a hospital wouldn't be prohibiting visitors.
Presumably RC had no means of contacting Sergei by phone either, and vice
versa. As far as we know, Sergei has been kept incommunicado ever since
4th March, if indeed he is still alive. A very worrying situation.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't
allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this?
Cassidy's Sky News interview was published on 3/28; so, his interview
took place on or before 3/28. As of that date, both Yulia and Sergei were
officially unconscious or not able to communicate meaningfully. At the direction
of a hospital or for other reasons determined by law enforcement, police
do have that right.
Also, we don't have any idea if at any time Yulia and/or Sergei requested
to see Cassidy.
I see now. As you say the Skripals (or 'bench people') were still officially
unconscious at that time, so it would make sense that no visitors were allowed.
If the Skripals were there and after they had regained consciousness,
it's surely likely that they would have wanted visitors, especially a visit
from Ross Cassidy, Sergei's best friend. But I'm pretty certain that the
authorities would have prevented this at all costs, hence the lack of phone
access and Cassidy's remarks.
These exchanges about whether friends were allowed to visit the Skripals
in hospital inspired me to refresh my memories of the gross deception of
HMG regarding whether the Skripals had any relatives in Russia. At the High
Court ruling by Mr Justice Williams on 22 March, granting permission to
provide the OPCW with samples, he stated "Given the absence of any contact
having been made with the NHS Trust by any family member and the limited
evidence as to the possible existence of family members in Russia, I accept
that it is neither practicable nor appropriate in the special context of
this case to consult with any relatives [of the Skripals] who might fall
into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act". ('The Act' being
the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and s.4(7)(b) states that before delivering
what is in an incapacitated person's best interests the person ruling (in
this case Mr Justice Williams) must: take into account, in order to consult
them, the views of anyone engaged in caring for the person or INTERESTED
IN HIS WELFARE"). (my emphasis).
This statement was delivered in spite of the fact that the Sun had carried
an interview with Viktoria Skripal on 14 March about her concerns and desire
to visit/make contact with the Skripals. And in spite of the fact that the
Russian Embassy have records that on 6 March "the Embassy informed the FCO
of the request it had received from Viktoria Skripal to provide information
on the condition of her relatives.
https://rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6481
Apologies for the misplacement of a couple of quotation marks in the above
post. I usually intend to proof read what I have written before sending
but didn't on this occasion as I am conscious that if I exceed a certain
period of time composing my message (I haven't worked out what the time
limit is) the system refuses to post it and I have to start again. That
aside, I think my meaning is clear.
Friends do not enjoy the same privileges to visit patients in hospital
as family does. (This has been a huge factor in why same-sex marriage was so necessary.)
Quote : The colonel's close friend Ross Cassidy, who lives just a few doors
from the property the Russian rented when he first arrived in Salisbury,
said he "was not at liberty to talk."
He declined to say whether his friend had spoken of fears for his life,
adding: "It's a very sensitive investigation of some gravitas. I really
am unable to divulge any information at the moment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/did-treacherous-past-russian-colonel-finally-catch-salisbury/
I agree with you that Cassidy knows more, but is forbidden to talk about.
I will reply to this, but simply as a test as I can't seem to post this
afternoon,
Maybe Rob is doing some site maintenance.
I do not think SDH were involved in bad practices. The Terror Team and
PD took over.
In fact going to the courts for the second blood sample might have been
required due to SDH "resistance".
Anyone else with posting issues?
If I see that you are posting then it must be my PC or possibly the big
van with a dish on the roof at the end of my street.
A some point people stopped trying to prove the Earth was an irregular ball
shape thing and was spinning around, doing laps of our nearest star at close
on 66k mph.
They didn't stop because it wasn't true, it had just been proven beyond
doubt and there was other stuff to get on with.
Flat Earthers did come along, many having their own reasons, some just
didn't want to believe we were on a ball floating in space and prefer to
live with the idea that we live on a gurt plate.
The Hoax has been proven, the motive is not the most important feature,
murderers go to jail whether their motives are known or not.
The most important thing is to identify who was responsible for Dawn
Sturgess' death and bring them to Justice along with those that have attempted
to cover up the wicked and depraved crime.
The motives may or may not flow from that process but it is rather academic
at the moment to say the least.
Those responsible for Dawn's death are also responsible for the cover
up of the Salisbury Incident. That is what led to Dawn's death.
People responsible include
Mrs May and some of her Ministers
Salisbury and Met Police Chiefs.
These are not wild "Conspiracy Theories". They are cold, hard facts.
And we have the proof that will convict. Beyond reasonable doubt proof that
those people I have mentioned above are involved in the death of Dawn Surgess
and the cover up of the Salisbury and Amesbury Incidents.
Whenever governments bury facts, they are never up to any good. History
is full of examples of facts been hidden and whenever the lid is finally
raised, it is was never for a good reason:
Vietnam war
JFK
Iraq WMD
etc
etc
The problem for TPTB this time is that they are in a different class
to prior events – they are completely incompetent, utterly useless, self-important
fools and obvious liars. This is what 'equal opportunity' hiring does! The
good liars are gone.
Just look at all the 'officials' involved and wonder how they ever came
to get the job
I continue to believe that this saga was the reason for Johnson's resignation.
He could have survived May's Chequers debacle but he knows this story will
ruin the rest of his career, so he has done a runner. He will get as much
distance between himself and these events as he possibly can.
Paul,
Once again, I agree with everything you say.
Digressing to a different topic, it is the sheer "incompetence etc etc"
that also explains the shambles that is 'Brexit'. And these incompetents
– as I have alluded to elsewhere – are these days supported by many incompetent
civil servants. I could see the way things were heading many years ago and
that was one of my reasons for leaving the civil service 15 years ago after
more than 20 years service in the company of many intelligent and honourable
civil servants who were gradually retiring and were also expressing concerns
about the deterioration in standards at all levels. I saw the rot begin
when, about 20 years ago, the civil service opened up vacancies at all levels
of responsibility to people with administrative or managerial experience
but not civil service experience, so they hadn't acquired the ability to
work alongside and in conjunction with legal advisers or technical experts
(e.g. in my case, veterinarians and structural engineers at different times)
which is an ability that develops and improves over an extended period of
time and is integral to the successful functioning of the CS. When I joined
the CS you would attend meetings and observe how such relationships developed
and were used to achieve the intended aim many years before you yourself
might find yourself having to do it. That no longer happens – people are
just thrown in at the deep end, managed by incompetent staff and told to
get on with it, with nobody providing knowledge-based 'quality control'.
Whether or not you are a 'Remainer' or a 'Brexiteer' in principle, there
was no hope for negotiations from the outset with the useless shower that
we have in power (scope for a limerick there!). The Brexit considerations
and negotiations have been in the hands of pathetic amateurs who are at
sixes and sevens and who, after so many decades of relying on the EU to
tell them what to do, have completely foregone any ability to think for
themselves. That is the key problem, not the principle of Brexit, which
could have resulted in far more encouraging prospects had it been in the
right hands.
CF
Peter,
Exactly – one quality I found to be completely absent in 'newcomers' was
initiative. I inherited someone at middle management level who had been
in that particular policy job for about a year. I routinely asked him to
draft a straightforward (but not 'standard') letter for one of our Ministers
to send to an MP answering questions raised by a constituent about aspects
of our Department's legislation. After all, that was part of his job description.
As a middle manager responsible for that policy area he and even his subordinate
officer should be able to quote chapter and verse and why it had been formulated
in the way it had (e.g. 'based on Article X of EU Council Directive ABC');
at the very least he should have been able to work out the answers from
information to hand or by consulting expert colleagues. We had been given
the standard week or so to produce the draft reply which I could have knocked
up in a couple of hours at most. So when I hadn't been given the draft for
clearance by the morning of the required day and asked him about it he told
me I had been unreasonable to ask him to do it without telling him what
he needed to say! Needless to say, I knocked up the reply in a couple of
hours but had to forego other tasks I was supposed to do that afternoon.
When I joined the CS a Clerical Officer (2 grades below this chap) would
have been asked to provide a first draft. I could bore you with other examples
but, you'll be pleased to hear,I won't. Unfortunately that level of intellect
is all too common nowadays.
Charlie, you've described an operational organizational change that isn't
limited to public institutions. It exists in corporations as well and began
to take hold about thirty years ago. Instead of promoting from within line
staff – those who had spent years doing and moved up slowly in managerial
positions as they demonstrated management skills – into the managerial ranks,
the concept of 'universal manager' gained a foothold. As if managerial skills
are a special talent and nothing more is required to manage any operation.
In the US, business and government had to absorb all those newly minted
MBAs and those people weren't about to start at the bottom of the operational
ladder.
The two best managers I ever had the pleasure to work for didn't complete
an undergrad college degree. Yes, they did have people skills but they were
also solid in their line technical skills as well. Highly respected by employees,
colleagues, and in the industry. They had a firm grasp of the skill-sets
of their employees, how trustworthy each of their employees were, and were
immune to the sycophants.
Marie
Another change in infrastructure policy that had dire consequences and contributed
to the problems you refer to was the principle that 'no one could be deemed
a failure or to not have the aptitude to succeed with the appropriate training'.
When I began my CS employment the annual report procedure was quite emphatic
and honest about abilities. As a manager there was a range of five graded
boxes you could tick against all aspects of performance, the lowest of which
was 'not good enough', and, if repeated, this could warrant a warning from
personnel (sorry, 'human resources' now) and potentially demotion. There
was also a box where the manager had to enter what grade they thought the
member of staff would have the inherent capability of achieving by the end
of their career! For many people of all ages this was often the grade they
were in at the time but they were realistic and honest enough to accept
that it was probably right. It's arguable whether this last box served a
positive purpose for the majority of staff but, rightly or wrongly, the
intention was to motivate the best staff to continue in the CS rather than
become despondent and quit. It was decided by forward thinking, liberal
minded individuals many years ago now that annual reports should never say
anything negative, and if anything negative needed to be said then the line
management must be at fault for not overcoming their staff member's deficiencies.
George,
Yep. Another problem we are creating for the future – although the Govt
will welcome this 'problem' – is that in 'the good old days' and up until
the 1990s EVERY single official communication whether written or verbal
had to be recorded on a single officially registered uniquely numbered registry
file. Each file, where documents and 'minutes' were sequentially numbered
in date order, expanded to about 2.5″ thick and some subjects would have
multiple A,B, C etc files. If someone in Office A sent a note to someone
in Office B about a Govt issue it was obligatory to send a paper photocopy
(or carbon copy) to HQ for them to place on the file. Nothing went unrecorded.
Even internal discussions between staff would be summarised on a minute
sheet afterwards, signed by the staff involved and placed on file. The system
had to be run really strictly but it worked and we can look back and identify
why certain decisions were made and by whom. But now, with the advent of
computers and email the significance of keeping central records has gone
and I can guarantee nobody in HQ has a complete historical record of all
deliberations and communications. In years to come, conveniently for the
Govt, key information about what has been going on in this case and other
important matters will be missing.
The motive – creating a rift between the Russian and Western states – is
obvious. The perpetrators – including Yulia in the attack for publicity
– too.
It is possible that Skripal was following money laundering via real estate
for Christopher Steele and the mafia did not like it.
But the whole thing was planned for publicity.
Anybody interested in tax havens and investment .
"Perhaps the greatest challenge, with respect to Russia and more generally,
concerns the anonymity of global offshore finance. On this front, the US
administration would find some cooperation from Moscow. Economically, the
Russian treasury has been losing vast sums to offshores. Politically, the
Kremlin is keen to strengthen its control over bureaucrats and oligarchs,
two groups for whom offshore nest eggs provide an alternative to Putin's
Russia. Since 2013, the Kremlin has pursued a "deoffshorization" campaign
encouraging businesses to repatriate capital and stop registering companies
offshore; additional legislation has restricted the Russian state employees'
foreign asset
ownership. A joint US-Russian effort, however limited, at ending the anonymity
of corrupt cash flows in Western jurisdictions would serve the interests
of both countries."
In the interests of accuracy, Simpson has never claimed to have expertise
on Russia. His major calling card is the series of investigative articles
he wrote on Ukraine, circa 2005-2008, when he was a WSJ reporter. In 2014
or 2015 he was hired by Prevezon, the plaintiff in a UK lawsuit against
Browder, and later a defendant in a DOJ lawsuit. When Fusion GPS was hired
by the Washington Beacon to do oppo research on Trump, he knew nothing about
Trump. It was after the Beacon contract ended and approximately two months
after the DNC/HRC campaign hired Fusion and they outsourced the Trump-Russia
oppo research to Steele. (Personally, I suspect that Steele had been engaged
on this long before then but not by Fusion.)
Dylan Martinez who operated the camera at Yulia's post-Novihoax debut, and
who is described as the chief Reuters photographer for UK and Ireland, has
an amusing quote heading his profile page: "When editing photos I look for the truth told in the most beautiful
way."
Yulya Skripal, the embodiment of truth and beauty!
I forgot to mention that Mr Martinez covers "news, sport and the odd feature". Regardless of a possible fake tracheotomy scar, I suppose his Skripal
assignment was highly likely to be the oddest feature of his career.
https://widerimage.reuters.com/photographer/dylan-martinez
'In another curious detail in the filing, the special counsel team said
Papadopoulos had been given $10,000 in cash "from a foreign national whom
he believed was likely an intelligence officer of a foreign country." The
filing noted that the country was "other than Russia." ' CNN
Mueller strangely coy about who gave Papa 10k in cash. Was he an Orbis
collector too?
UK Government and intelligence all over the place :
Quote : Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants
off the foreign-policy establishment by calling for a rapprochement with
Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was somehow behind it. The pace
accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant named George
Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling
in Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic,
who reportedly set about cultivating him after learning of his position
with Trump. Mifsud claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian
government officials," according to prosecutors. Over breakfast at a London
hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where
he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form
of "thousands of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The
New York Times describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion
Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends,"
which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. But WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign
Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official
named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in
Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian
agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely
with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by telling a reporter
that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing Trump's
anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch
with a friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her
boss. Over drinks, Downer advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos
then passed along Misfud's tip about Clinton's emails, Downer informed his
government, which, in late July, informed the FBI. (..)
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and
a paid trip to London to write a research paper on a disputed gas field
in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty. "George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there, but Papadopoulos
said he knew nothing.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking-themselves/
PAGE 3 OF 4
Within 30 minutes (15.47 to 16.15) they are in critical condition. Charlie
Rowley describes a similar time-frame for Dawn Sturgess.
7th March – Scotland Yard Chief Medical Officer statement
"As your Chief Medical Officer, my message to the public is that this event
poses a low risk to us, the public, on the evidence we have."
METHOD OF DELIVERY
Spray: too risky, the assailants run the risk of contaminating themselves.
Also the doctor said "There was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's
face or body".
High pressure syringe: the pressure is so great the vaccine (or nerve
agent) is pumped through the skin and immediately enters the blood stream.
The beauty of this method of delivery is there's no evidence. I think the
assailants grabbed them from behind and delivered the nerve agent directly
into the jugular vein, the site of the attack being at the corner of G&T'S.
The Skripals wouldn't have known what had just happened to them.
DS BAILEY
DS Bailey will have attended a First-Aid course, so his first action would
be to loosen any clothing round Sergei's neck and clear his airway. If you
look at photos of Sergei, he's got quite a thick neck, so DS Bailey probably
had to fiddle a bit with his clothing and this is probably how he was contaminated.
He'd unknowingly come into direct contact with a small amount of residue
nerve agent at the delivery site.
ANTON UTKIN former UN Chemical Weapons Expert in Iraq
Worlds Apart Interview 29th April 2018 – Breaking with Conventions?
"Why was Novichok agent determined undecomposed only in the blood of
Yulia Skripal? It was undecomposed. It's supposed to be decomposed under
the metabolism of the body, but they found undecomposed agent in her blood,
but not in the blood of Sergei Skripal, who got heavier exposure to the chemical
agent. That was very strange because it is not clear how it happened that
a fresh agent was in Yulia's blood."
Sounds like he suspects Yulia received a second dose while in hospital.
She was making an unexpected recovery, partly because she's healthy and
partly because of the medical treatment, so somebody gave her another dose.
Sergei wasn't expected to survive because as Anton Utkin said, he "got
heavier exposure to the chemical agent", that combined with any existing
health issues, he was simply expected to die.
PAGE 2 OF 4
"Georgia Pridham, 25, also saw the couple slumped on the bench. She said:
"He was quite smartly dressed. He had his palms up to the sky as if he was
shrugging and was staring at the building in front of him. He had a woman
sat next to him on the bench who was slumped on his shoulder. He was staring
dead straight. He was conscious, but it was like he was frozen and slightly
rocking back and forward."
"Graham Mulcock said: "The paramedics seemed to be struggling to keep
the two people conscious. The man was sitting staring into space in a catatonic
state".
"Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre,
said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the
bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in
the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure.
It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was
raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
Other reports: "Two police officers helped the pair before emergency
services were called at 4.15pm."
Emergency services: "There were several emergency calls."
Channel 4 "Russian Spy Assassination", 26th March 2018
Male witness: "There was a man being sick on the floor, leant over, and
a woman laying on the floor. I didn't see the woman, she was surrounded
by paramedics, but they both looked fairly ill."
EFFECTS OF NERVE AGENT POISONING
Craig Murray's article Knobs and Knockers quote from a scientist "Unlike
traditional poisons, nerve agents don't need to be added to food and drink
to be effective. They are quite volatile, colourless liquids (except VX,
said to resemble engine oil). The concentration in the vapour at room temperature
is lethal. The symptoms of poisoning come on quickly, and include chest
tightening, difficulty in breathing, and very likely asphyxiation. Associated
symptoms include vomiting and massive incontinence. Eventually, you die
either through asphyxiation or cardiac arrest".
EVENTS FROM 15.47 ONWARDS
15.47 CCTV footage, if you analyse the shape of Sergei's head and hairline
with clearer pictures it matches. Two witnesses describe Yulia as having
blonde hair. At this point, neither is showing any signs of nerve agent
poisoning.
16.03 (16 minutes later) Freya Church sees them slumped on the bench.
Minutes later, both are becoming critically ill. From witness statements,
Yulia is worse affected so the doctor attends to her and DS Bailey attends
to Sergei. The reports say two police officers, but I think it was the security
guard.
PAGE 1 OF 4
I think I've worked out how it was done and why DS Bailey was the only other
person affected. It's all down to METHOD OF DELIVERY. The attack took place
between 15.47 and 16.03 near to where they were found. The door handle is
a diversionary technique to draw attention away from this. There's someone
else calling themselves Anonymous, I'll call myself Anonymous-1 see what
happens.
TIMINGS
13.40 Arrive at car park
Feed ducks and walk to pub
Mill Pub (30 minutes)
Walk to Zizzi's
(40 mins have elapsed from arriving at the car park to arriving at Zizzi's)
14.20-15.35 Zizzi's (1 hour 15 minutes, there's specific timings)
(12 minutes after leaving Zizz's they are picked up on CCTV)
15.47 CCTV footage (older man with blonde haired younger woman with red
bag)
(16 minutes later they fall ill from nerve agent poisoning)
16.03 Freya Church see them slumped on bench
(5 other witnesses all see them on bench, with two 'police' officers and
a doctor in attendance)
16.15 Emergency service call(s)
WITNESS STATEMENTS FROM NEWS REPORTS
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV],
personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a
bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs.
"It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's
been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and
he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just
drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people
here so I just thought they were homeless."
FEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene
has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting
and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman,
who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said
she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried
she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
"Witness Jamie Paine told the BBC yesterday: "Her eyes were just completely
white, they were wide open, but just white and she was frothing at the mouth.
And then the man went stiff, his arms stopped moving and still looking dead
straight."
Now here is someone who knows where Yulia is. The photographer in the Reuters
video is of Yulia making her statement is Dylan Martinez.
Reuters written reporters may know where she is as well. Reporting is
by Guy Faulconbridge. Additional reporting by Alistair Smout. Editing by
Simon Robinson and Nick Tattersall. There will be a video cameraman who
knows as well and a video editor.
Do you think you might write to them Rob and ask where she is?
And if they wont tell you, what is their reason for not telling you?
As you know any information we can get is useful Miheila. We could learn
a lot about who has Yulia, by were she was for the Reuters video and yes
you are correct to suggest that she probably isn't there anymore. Thank
you. I think they will slip up soon, its getting to be a way too tangled
web now with far to many people to keep silent.
So tangled, Denise, that I feel it's tangling the neurones in my brain!
Does anyone know when exactly that video was recorded (rather than released),
after all, the statement was mysteriously undated? Could there have been
some kind of embargo on its release until a later date?
Yulia was allegedly released on 10th April, 43 days before the video
was broadcast. According to The Sun, a 'source' claimed that she'd been
released from SDH into another hospital: ''She is in hospital on a military
base for her own protection and to monitor her health." Was the video recorded
at that military base?
Was it USAF Fairford?
Could the CIA have pre-empted MI6's hasty plans for the disappearance
of the Skripals? Perhaps MI6 had nothing planned. Maybe it was a CIA operation
from the beginning. I'll need to think about these scenarios a lot more.
Miheila, if you listen to the Daily Mail version of the video there are
a lot of police sirens at the end including bull horns. That and the aircraft
noise would point to London. It could be US Ambassadors residence in Regents
Park.
In my opinion, it was a rogue FBI op to stop "our guy" going back to Russia.
I think UK authorities knew it was happening and organised medical cavalry
to save Skripals.
HMG are caught out, to admit it would be proof MI6 surrogates were interfering
in US presidential election.
So the Feds made it look like Russia and HMG have to follow the pretence.
In my scenario some of them could be genuine. If the emergency services
were told extra medical/police/fire resources were available for that Sunday
due to the " CBW exercise" that was going on they wouldn't publicly question
it.
Maybe when the Skripals were on the bench they thought it was not "real
world" and that is why they dashed in.
But I think HMG knew Yulia had come to extricate Sergei and knew rogue elements
in UK and US "intelligence community" were trying to assassinate him.
Any contributors on here offering an alternative theory to the Hoax should
be aware (although they may be blissfully unaware) that the Hoax has been
proven.
It is a fact.
So before putting out new theories please recognise that fact and possibly
try the refute / debunk / disemble the fact before you put forward your
take.
Don't get me wrong (although a few will) I think that brainstorming and
testing theories is fine, more than fine it is essential to test ideas and
testament to the progress that this blog has contributed, advanced and assisted
public understanding in the unravelling of the case.
If you have an alternative theory please let it coincide with at least
a few facts.
@Peter
The scientific method (a la Popper): observe, deduce, theorize, predict
(i.e. show how the theory matches/predicts the things observed). And, if
necessary, adduce (i.e. defend the hypothesis).
What is never done is to insist dogmatically that one's pet theory is
the only explanation. This is because it is the duty of every scientifist
to, having produced a theory, seek to demolish it. You aren't doing that,
Peter, instead you are challenging others to demolish it.
I think fact that Sergei Skripal an ex spy may have confused issues? He
may or may not still have been actively doing intelligence but all evidence
points to accidental poisoning by drug addicts sleeping rough.
1. Reported that 40/50 rough sleepers including drug addicts, living in
area at time of Skripal poisoning.
2. Contaminated public lavatories and a "drug den" in park.
3. Council blocked off rough sleepers area and rehomed drug addicts after
Skripal poisoning.
4. Charlie Rowley rehoused at about that time?
5. OPCW not permitted to analyse all ingredients associated with poisoning
which they say makes it very difficult identifying substance
6. Two men (Kim Ferguson and Jamie Knight) forced their way through police
barricade to get to bench where Skripals had been sitting
6. Dawn Sturgess's poisoning looks like classic One Pot Shake and Bake methamphetamine
accident. Fact that fire brigade called and she was in bath suggests explosion
and burns.
7. One Pot Shake and bake produces large amounts of toxins which are dumped.
Public loos in park reported contaminated and report of a drug den there.
8. Skripals, Sturgess and Rowley did not respond to naloxone so not opioid
poisoning, this fits with it being poison from waste left from one pot shake
and bake meth.
9. Salisbury Hospital Doctor said no-one was suffering from nerve agent
poisoning.
"... "Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau delivering information to Congress 'about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned about this. *People's lives may be endangered*.'" ..."
"... If Rosenstein knew of Steele's relationship with the Ohrs prior to signing FISA, he already knew that he was signing a BS FISA application – which would be perjury. But if Rosenstein was a 'firewall', it becomes an attempted coup and sedition awkward. ..."
Key quote from Sara Carter's revelations about text messages from Christopher Steele to Bruce
Ohr in October 2017:
"Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau
delivering information to Congress 'about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned
about this. *People's lives may be endangered*.'"
Now, this might seem a bit of an aside, but does anyone reading this blog have any idea
when Yulia last came to England prior to 3rd March this year? I'm trying to get an idea of
whether she is likely to have had any idea prior to this visit of what her father was
involved in, or whether she is likely to have learnt about this on this particular visit.
Thanks Rob and we are all grateful for your capacity to harness all the contributors into a
sane dialogue.
Motive indeed:
There are the pleadings by Steele to Ohr for reassurance that the "firewall" is solid! Not
sure what that intends but surely there are a few firewalls in this saga going all the way
back on the US side to the favorite candidate, the candidates party, the party legal team
that employed Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS itself, Orbis, Steele, Sergei, and perhaps Yulia. What
might have been her potential role other than innocent visitor. We now have a clearer view of
her employment trajectory. I would bet the firewalls on the UK side are fully aluminium clad
too, and I anticipate this site and a few other emerging lines of inquiry will penetrate
those.
The furious mother in law angle is a good one and potentially worth a serious look.
Sometimes murders deliver conveniences to unforeseen parties.
The overreach of British interference in the USA election and May's complicity in that
exercise needed a very good redeeming cover and here is a dandy.
The mafiosi angle cannot be ruled out and nor can the Ukrainian possibility given their
intense penetration of the EU playing ground. Perhaps Sergei was investigating things there
too and annoyed the new mafiosi now free to roam.
But I am sure that closer to home there are others that employed Orbis to do interesting
work. How's Bill Browder these days?
Page was the fourth firewall (not Comey), but she is already gone too.
If Rosenstein knew of Steele's relationship with the Ohrs prior to signing FISA, he
already knew that he was signing a BS FISA application – which would be perjury. But if
Rosenstein was a 'firewall', it becomes an attempted coup and sedition awkward.
Nick Bailey
Charlie Rowley
Helicopter pilot
Helicopter paramedics
Land ambulance paramedics
Doctors at Salisbury Hospital
Nurses at Salisbury Hospital
Head of Porton Down
Porton Down scientists
Porton Down workers
These may know more than they are saying:
The Mill staff
Zizzi's staff
Main stream media journalists (D noticed)
Salisbury Journal journalists (D noticed)
It only takes one to talk for the whole house of cards to come crashing down.
All the named witnesses
The ebola nurse
Whoever orgainsed the rapid response from the emergency vehicles
All the police 'searching' for something
Everyone who has seen the CCTV
The guys in hazmat suits on 4 March
People 'highly likely' to know the most, and are saying nothing:
Chris Steele
Pablo Miller (aka Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo)
MI6 people
GCHQ people
Probably CIA, NSA, US State Dept, SBU, Mossad, etc. (take your pick!)
MI5 people, including any watchers who may have been deployed
FCO people
People who know more than they are saying:
certain people in the Russian Foreign Ministry
GRU, FSB, FAPSI people
People who may know more, and may be willing to speak:
Various Salisbury witnesses, named and unnamed
Ross Cassidy
The Filmers of Distillery Farm??
Regarding "the/a motive", wouldn't Putin's alleged statement of vengeance towards the
defector, Skripal, be enough to convince the UK government of there being at least "a motive"
if not also "the motive"?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/traitors-will-kick-bucket-vladimir-putin-swore-revenge-poisoned/
Also, I guess I need it spelled out for me. Why would Skripal's assassination put an end to
all future spy swaps?
I don't think Putin did it -- he's not so foolish as to have such poor timing politically --
but I'm not so sure the UK government can't legitimately show a possible Russian motive, for
the purpose of helping the UK's own political timing.
Lastly, the commentators' list of complicit conspirators is just too long to make this a
real conspiracy.
But the UK Government must know that Putin's alleged promise to "choke" traitors was
nothing of the sort. It was in fact one of the most blatant propaganda pieces I have ever
seen.
The video in which he allegedly said this appeared on BBC's Newsnight and can be seen at
this link:
But the original can be found at his 2010 Q&A session when he was PM. The relevant
section begins at just after 3 hours 12 minutes, and lasts for about 3 minutes.
As you will see, his answer is basically the diametric opposite to the one the BBC piece
leads you to believe. They basically took what he said, hacked it about to extract the bits
they didn't want their audience to hear, and then put it back together (with some scary
music) to make it sound like he said something he didn't actually say.
Rob, thanks for the satisfactory explanation of Newsnight's deceitfulness. It appears that
Putin didn't give his potential future defector-spies a pass while at the same time shaming
those caught at it as being like a Judas. I wonder, though, how those thinking about possibly
selling out would read Putin's deflecting the former practice of assassination decisions as
resting on a head of state. He said it had evolved to being the decision of a special group
in the security services. Of course he (probably rightly) dissociates his government from now
operating that way. How are we to know apart from there being sufficient evidence to the
contrary? But if Putin and his security services are in truth completely innocent I don't see
how his response could have been any better.
I still don't see why an assassination would put the damper on future spy swaps. Help my
reasoning abilities.
Regarding the claim of there being a growing multitude of unwilling conspirators, I wonder
if this isn't a case, at times, of commentators taking every thought captive to the obedience
of "The Conspiracy Theory".
It might be beneficial for some agency to create a very public internet place where those
caught up as witnesses to the case can come to make their clear statements or confessions
without fear of reprisal. Possible attempts at reprisal could also be broadcast.
I still don't see why an assassination would put the damper on future spy swaps. Help my
reasoning abilities.
Tradition, it's (p)art of the deal. Country A holds a country B spy and country B holds a
country A spy. Both want its own spy back home for any one or more reasons. Why would country
A release the spy it holds in exchange for the one that country B holds if country B reserved
the option to at a later date take out Country A's spy? Spy (or alleged spy) swaps only work
with an implicit agreement that there will be no retaliation by either country against the
individuals included in the swap.
All the ins and outs involved in a spy swap are carefully considered. The swap must appear
as of equal value to the two countries. The inclusion of Skripal in the US-Russia spy swap
appeared odd to those that follow such matters as he had been a UK asset and by 2010 not of
any particularly high-value to the UK. Nothing further has been said about this by the US,
UK, or Russia; so, we're free to concoct a devious plot where none existed.
Marie, Reading what you wrote just triggered a thought usually a spy swap is where, say, US
spies caught and imprisoned in Russia, are exchanged for Russian spies caught and imprisoned
in the US. Each country gets their own nationals back. The individuals were guilty of
espionage in another country and get to go home.
That is not what Sergei was. He was a Russian national, caught and imprisoned in Russia
for treason. How did he ever get to become part of a spy swap?
Why would the UK want to take him? He had no more value to them, he had already been paid
for the information he had handed over so why would the UK agree to take him and pay for his
upkeep? What did the UK get out of the deal?
On the other side of Sergei's deal in 2010, Russia got Anna Chapman back – a Russian
national caught and imprisoned in the US
Have we been fed a pile of BS about what or who Sergei was?
Wondered if anyone would catch that oddity in the Skripal case. Likely contributed to the
head-scratching back in 2010. However, Skripal wasn't the only Russian national released to
the west in that swap. (And I'm not sure all those held by the US were Russian nationals
– nor interested enough to research that.) We're weren't fed BS about Skripal because
he was hardly ever mentioned at all. Remember, Skripal was a walk-in and for the money. Not
important enough to recruit and while he had access to confidential personnel lists he was
useful. (Not as useful as Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were to the USSR but those two were
also walk-ins and the money is important to both.)
My two guesses on this – probably not worth anything –
1) Russia held too few spies to make the deal work. So, he threw in some that were of no
value to Russia and would be of some interest to the west to sweeten the offer. As Obama was
already under criticism for giving up more than he got in his deals, he needed numbers
(spies) to make this one look okay. The UK was told and not asked to accept Skripal. He,
after all, was their guy even if he'd screwed up and exposed the fake rock and blew up the UK
Moscow spy ring (I may be exaggerating on this point). IOW didn't need, didn't want, and had
no use for Skripal. (Also meant they had devote assets to insure he hadn't been turned into a
triple-agent.)
2) The UK asked the US to get Skripal out because they still needed to know exactly what
Skripal had told the Russian investigators. That would mean that they weren't competent
enough to figure that out and/or Skripal was given a far larger role in the UK spy operation
than Russia was able to determine.
I don't have a high opinion of MI6, the CIA, etc., but it's still tough for me to buy
scenario #2. So, I've been going with #1.
So the UK was fulfilling its role as a vassal state
You comment just gave me another thought. Cameron became PM in May 2010 and the spy swap
was in July 2010, so Cameron was then PM. It is a tradition (not a rule) that the next Tory
PM hands out a knighthood to the previous Tory PM – and May hasn't done that yet I
wonder why?
The last time it happened (and that was the first time to the best of my knowledge) was
Margaret Thatcher who refused to give one to Ted Heath – he had to wait until 1992 for
John Major to give him one (if you will pardon the expression!)
At that time, apart from the fact that Thatcher despised Heath politically, it was a very
poorly kept secret that Thatcher's refusal was driven by her knowledge that Heath was a
paedophile.
Nothing to do with the Skripals but it will be interesting to see how long Cameron has to
wait.
So the UK was fulfilling its role as a vassal state
Only if there's truth in my fiction.
May was Home Secretary as of May 2010; so, also probably on board with the spy swap -- or
it was too far along to being a done deal for she and Cameron to nix it when they came into
office.
It was the British government who insisted on Skripal being included in the spy-swap made
between 10 'illegals' (placed as sleepers in the USA at the time, and led by Anna Chapman)
and four national traitors.
These four were of more use to the West than the 10 illegals. Alexander Zaporozhsky and
Igor Sutyagin had spied spying for the USA. Gennady Vasilenko was involved in illegal weapons
possession, and the reasoning for him being included in the swap has never been
disclosed.
"Skripal is considered the more important of the two as far as Britain's security and
intelligence agencies are concerned. He is likely to be debriefed for weeks, if not months.
He will be given a home and pension if he decides to stay in Britain. The future of Sutyagin
[in Britain] is less certain He could yet return to Russia".
Pardon, but where does it say that the UK requested Skripal in the US-Russia spy swap?
Two Russians exchanged in a high-profile "spy swap" were today being debriefed by MI5
and MI6 officers at a secret location close to London.
SOP – wouldn't want to let a triple-agent into the country.
Skripal is considered the more important of the two as far as Britain's security and
intelligence agencies are concerned. He is likely to be debriefed for weeks, if not months.
He will be given a home and pension if he decides to stay in Britain.
Well, Skripal did help to blow up the UK's fake rock spy communication set-up in Moscow.
And the UK wouldn't pass on an opportunity to have Skripal tell them exactly what he'd
spilled to Russian authorities (likely everything). But that "home and pension" not only
fills in a gap about what is publicly known about Skripal but also that the UK accepted that
they were stuck with him as part of the spy swap.
Britain and the US say they have got more out of the spy swap than Russia because the
four men released by Moscow were far more serious individuals than the 10 agents handed over
by the US.
Do you think the UK and US would say they got the short end of the stick in the deal?
Superficially (the ordinary person's level of geo-political understanding), getting for
Russian four nationals (three convicted of espionage, spying for the west and serving
sentences of 15 to 18 years) for eleven low value Russians held by the west doesn't look like
the better part of the bargain. And in the US this could easily have become another
anti-Obama rallying cry for the GOP and their right-wing crazies. That seemed not to have
happened. Probably a too esoteric for that audience.
This is interesting:
One of those released to the US, Alexander Zaporozhsky, was a KGB colonel whose spying
for the US is understood to have led to the unmasking of Robery Hanssen, an FBI officer, and
Aldrich Ames, a CIA officer, two of Russia's most important spies in the US.
If true, the CIA and FBI were in debt to Zaporozhsky and the official FBI and CIA stories
of the unmasking of these two moles if fiction. I suspect that the above claim is the
fiction. Designed to add weight to why Zaporozhsky was accepted in the swap and preserved the
secrecy of whatever info he had actually passed to the US.
For now, I'll stick with my guess that the UK wasn't keen on being stuck with Skripal.
Thanks for your reply, Marie. Just so you know, I don't think the evidence supports the
poisoning having been ordered by Putin. I would only contend that if he had ordered it Putin
would have been anticipating a positive effect. It would have limited the number of UK spy
candidates willing to risk spying against Russia. (Putin probably wouldn't have foreseen the
success of the sanctions campaign.) But, in my opinion, both parties –in the future --
would continue their interest in spy swaps. In spite of the negative consequences of exposing
them to murder, why not get ones spy back and better protect them?
It might be that an imprisoned spy will prefer to complete his prison term than to get
swapped and thus to become a potential target for assassination.
I wonder what Sergei is thinking now. His daughter's life is ruined and may be in
danger.
I often wonder about how they and their family in Russia feel about this awful affair. We
tend to forget the human side of the story, but we shouldn't. Sergei, from all I hear about
him, seemed a decent kind of man. He may have been foolish for being talked into betraying
his country by Pablo Miller, but I don't see him as a bad man at heart. Maybe he was
desperate for money at the time or goinf throufgh a bad patch which would have made him more
susceptible to manipulation. Who knows?
But now his acts have somehow caused lives to fall apart and much I'm sure suffering. It's
my view that all governments are essentially evil (greedy, ruthless and self-serving), and
don't work in the interests of ordinary people – often working against them. The
evidence of history bears this out.
Craig Murray has been adamant that PM didn't recruit Skripal and that Skripal was known as a
walk-in. (It is generally accepted that at some point and for some undefined period of time
that PM was Skripal's handler.)
A "nice" man doesn't endanger the lives of his colleagues for money.
All those on the list aren't conspirators as you think of them. More like further victims
of the conspiracy. They dont know the whole story. They each only know a tiny bit of it. A
bad bit, but have been frightened so badly that they are scared to tell that little bit,
which will lead to the conspiracy unfolding. And make no mistake this is a conspiracy, a
swamp conspiracy of the tallest order.
Bob, it is not a list of "list of complicit conspirators" – it is a list of 'people who
know more than they have said'.
They are not all involved in a conspiracy, they are witnesses to the conspiracy. They each
have a story to tell that would open the lid on a part of what happened – not the whole
story.
Are they silent? I don't know, the MSM has not tried to ask them what they know, maybe
they will be happy to talk, if anyone asks.
Mrs Cooper told Rob that Sergei was wearing leather jacket and jeans – she was happy
to tell what she knew, all Rob had to do was ask. The Sun newspaper which broke the 'duck'
story and went to interview Mrs Cooper did not even bother to ask that question – or if
they did they did not reveal what she said.
The conspiracy continues through indifference of the MSM – sooner of later that will
change.
"... "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion. ..."
"... Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump ..."
"... The BBC is a propaganda organisation. It has even admitted it. http://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/04/bbc-asserts-it-is-propaganda.html ..."
"... The door handle application is a crock. If, as is claimed the alleged Novichok was pure then who made it should be known because of its purity. ..."
"... Browder just wants us to go to war with Russia so he can keep his stolen money, that's not too much to ask! ..."
On 8 July 2018 a lady named Kirsty Eccles asked what, in its enormous ramifications,
historians may one day see as the most important Freedom of Information request ever made. The
rest of this post requires extremely close and careful reading, and some thought, for you to
understand that claim.
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that
he had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban
on the subject of Sergei Skripal.
Yours faithfully,
Kirsty Eccles
The ramifications of this little request are enormous as they cut right to the heart of the
ramping up of the new Cold War, of the BBC's propaganda collusion with the security services to
that end, and of the concoction of fraudulent evidence in the Steele "dirty dossier". This also
of course casts a strong light on more plausible motives for an attack on the Skripals.
Which is why the BBC
point blank refused to answer Kirsty's request, stating that it was subject to the Freedom
of Information exemption for "Journalism".
10th July 2018
Dear Ms Eccles
Freedom of Information request – RFI20181319
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 8th July 2018, seeking the following information
under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000:
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that
he
had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban on
the
subject of Sergei Skripal.
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the
purposes of
'journalism, art or literature.' The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information
to you. Part VI
of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service
broadcasters
is only covered by the Act if it is held for 'purposes other than those of journalism, art or
literature".
The
BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output
or
information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.
The BBC is of course being entirely tendentious here – "journalism" does not include
the deliberate suppression of vital information from the public, particularly in order to
facilitate the propagation of fake news on behalf of the security services. That black
propaganda is precisely what the BBC is knowingly engaged in, and here trying hard to hide.
I have today attempted to contact Mark Urban at Newsnight by phone, with no success, and
sent him this email:
As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as
well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.
I wish to ask you the following questions.
1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire
World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the
previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that
unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?
2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal's MI6 handler, Pablo
Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over the
years and how often do you communicate?
3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did you
meet Miller separately?
4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?
5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the
Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only
forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your
discussions with Skripal?
6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the
Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?
7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?
8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?
9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that security
service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal's telephone may have been bugged. Since
January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of the
matter above.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Craig Murray
I should very much welcome others also sending emails to Mark Urban to emphasise the public
demand for an answer from the BBC to these vital questions. If you have time, write your own
email, or if not copy and paste from mine.
To quote that great Scot John Paul Jones, "We have not yet begun to fight".
Not going in to the details of the Skripals etc but what this goes to show is the
limitations of the FOI Act. The FOI Act was brought in by the Blair Govt but of course was
very much weakened in its final version. Even this was very much regretted by Blair in his
autobiography who said what an 'idiot' he had been to bring it in. Tony, you need have no
fear – powerful institutions like the BBC can block any meaningful probing because of
the limitations of the law.
Spotted this yesterday .5103 "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about
Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that
supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.
Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and
former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee
(DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics.
Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of
sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump , once
his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign." Etc etc
I can't add any cogency to the (so-far) fruitless quest for information from the BBC, but
last weeks R4 programme (still available on iPlayer) The Reunion, in which the Skripal, and
more recent 'nerve agent' attacks, were discussed and, I thought, neatly tied in with the
'Murder of Georgi Markov in the 1950s, apparently by Bulgarian secret agents, perhaps
deserves examination by listeners and researchers more interested in BBC propaganda.
A panel of 'experts', diplomats, security people, some of whom you may very well knowand who
laid claim to being 'there or thereabouts', concluded that The Skripal's incident bore all
the markings of 'state sponsored' action, though, of course, they would never know until "the
Russian archives are opened".
It all sounded thoroughly convincing (radio does when you're driving on a long-haul, I find)
but it did occur to me that the programme, though ostensibly about the 'murder of Markov' was
intended to draw the listener to inevitable conclusions about the perpetrators of Salisbury
and Amesbury 'poisonings'.
The BBC is very good at obfuscation and I felt this was a good example.
Sorry I cannot be more 'relevant' to your blog of 27/08/18.
Good luck, and please. as they say, keep up the good work.
I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past
with his blatant Western bias. For example, like the other overpaid political analysts and
presenters on the BBC, he doesn't question the stated but transparently dishonest premise of
the West – that they are intervening in other nations on a humanitarian basis. Like the
other wastes of space in the mainstream media, he is also quick to mention civilian deaths by
the Russians but not so quick to mention those killed by the West.
As I recall, Urban completely failed to reply to or to address the concerns of Media Lens
in a reasonable way.
"I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past
with his blatant Western bias."
Mark Urban is from a Western country and the broadcaster he works for is in a Western
country. Why are you so surprised that both he and the organisation he works for have a
"Western bias"? Is that so abnormal? Would you expect him to have a pro-Chinese or a
pro-Russian or, for that matter, a pro-Brazilian bias and would you be happy if he had? Would
you expect a journalist who works for RT to have an anti-Russian, pro-Western
bias?
Ramifications.
'Recently Aeroflot has been affected by US sanctions and its flights to America face possible
suspension by Washington, as the US government seeks to punish the Kremlin for its alleged
involvement in the poisoning of former double agent and Russian national Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March.' https://www.rt.com/trends/aeroflot-russia-airlines-international/
Russian skies could become too expensive for US airlines if Washington targets
Aeroflot
American carriers would face huge financial losses if Russia increases tariffs for the use of
its airspace in response to possible US sanctions targeting the country's largest airline
Aeroflot, an expert has told RT. https://www.rt.com/business/435599-russia-aeroflot-us-sanctions/
Klutzes all! and now the entire story is unravelling thanks to that idiot Alexander Downer
and his mate Halper. I guess their little maltese buddy Joe Mifsud is deeply underground for
a decade or two.
I hadn't really followed the implications until' your list. So there will be a chemical
attack and the OPCW will assign blame to Syria (but also possibly Syria/Russia).
The US have been making it clear that they would hold Russia accountable for any "further"
chemical weapons attacks carried out by Syria. This could used then to remove Russia form the
UN Security Council. Even for the UN to no longer recognise the Russian Government as
legitimate and instead recognise an alternative Russian Government (under Mikhail
Khardovsky). Will China fall in line?
This looks awfully close to the start of a full scale war.
The UN has been turning a blind eye to neo-con murder since 9/11. They are a busted flush.
There is no residual value or purpose for the UN in an age that backs Saudi Arabi to train
terrorists in Myanmar.
As to Senator John McCain the world will be a safer place when this terrorist is finally
removed. The UN is wholly owned by the US. The US neo-cons have sucked every particle of
respectability out of it.
" Those who antagonise the believing Muslim men and women and do not repent will be consigned
to the Fire, to dwell forever therein. " Qur'an. I am immensely proud of Donald trump for
refusing to honour him.
Frightening, and probably part of the plan. I have been reading for the last 2 days a
series of warnings by the Russians that a chemical "attack" is imminent. Not many
translations of this in the MSM. One would think that they wouldn't dare after such warnings,
but I am not optimistic. After all, how many people have read the warnings?
I've seen posts on Twitter about this warning by the Russians and you know what the
counter-argument is that they are putting forward? They contend that it's a double bluff by
the Syrians/Russians. Well, if you're intending to use chemical weapons why wouldn't you make
out that the other side are planning it as a false flag? Trouble is, Western governments will
be more than happy to go along with that in the public eye – let's face it, they know
the real truth of the situation. I note however that the Russian warning mentions the active
role in the planned false flag played by British security firm Olive. I haven't seen any
denial from them so that would suggest to a neutral observer that the Russian allegations do
have some foundation and hopefully will be enough to 'put the wind up' those planning the
event.
Further to my post at 18.08 I see a short and sweet statement on the Sputnik website that
"Olive Group has no involvement" Suzanne Piner, the company's marketing director said. So
there we have it, who are we to disbelieve them??
A great blog, Craig, and lots of good comments. I have two contributions.
1. A recent Spectator blog talked of a 'Stockade of D-notices'. Surely that means more
than the two we know about. So I guess that anyone working in the MSM must have to tread
carefully.
2. We are swimming in a sea of fake news, disinformation, misinformation, deliberate lies
and speculation. I have found only one rock worth clinging onto and it's this. The Porton
Down analyst (CC) who gave evidence to the high court which heard the blood sample
application said the analysis of the Skripals blood indicated exposure to a nerve agent or
related compound (para 17 of the judge's report). It is reasonable to assume they used the
term 'nerve agent' correctly, i.e. belonging to the group of organo-phosphorus compounds
(from the OPCW website). On the assumption CC told the truth, there are only three
possibilities:-
a. The Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, or
b. They were exposed to a related compound that was not a nerve agent, or
c. The analysis was unable to say whether it was a nerve agent or a related compound.
If it was 'a', why did CC muddy the waters by saying 'or a related compound? Very
unlikely, bearing in mind the sensitivety of the issue.
If it was 'c', is it credible that Porton Down, world leaders in chemical weaponry, were not
able to tell if a substance was a nerve agent or not? I think not.
Which leaves 'b'. That the Skripals were not poisoned by a nerve agent.
I think we should all write to our MPs pointing this out and request a Parliamentary
Question be put to the Secretary of State for Defence (who oversees PD) asking for full
details of those blood tests and for Theresa to be briefed accordingly. She would then be
required under the Ministerial Code to correct her misleading statements to the House which
claimed the Skripals were poisoned by a nerve agent.
Hi Robert – if CC knew for sure they Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, CC
would not have added 'or a related compound' as it only serves to confuse. CC might have said
it because he/she couldn't tell from the findings – most unlikely – so the only
reason he/she said the words 'or a related compound' was to avoid lying under oath to the
high court.
It all comes down to contaminated crack or whatever they used, especially the
Amesbury folk. They're well known imbibers a friend living there has told me.
I pass this on merely as a possible explanation from 'people who know'.
Hi Paul – yes. At the court hearing, CC was referring to the initial blood analyses
carried out by Porton Down a day or so after the poisoning. But clearly the doubt sown by the
words 'or a related compound' remained at least until 20th March when CC gave that
evidence.
I remember reading that Court of Protection judgement wording at the time and made some
notes about it, plus how this wording compared with that of Gary Aitkenhead's and the
OPCW's:
When comparing the wording from three sources – interview with head of Porton Down,
court hearing and OPCW documents – I think that there is room for the absence of
Novichok in blood samples taken from the Skripals before 22/03.
The Court of Protection judgement before Mr Justice Williams (22/03), (regarding an
application to take blood samples for the OPCW to confirm Porton Down's earlier analysis),
states that earlier blood tests carried out by Porton Down "indicated exposure to a nerve
agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class
nerve agent or closely related agent." (Please note the "or".) The statement comes at point
17 i):
Then, Gary Aitkenhead, CEO of Porton Down, told Sky News (04/04) that the substance they
found was "..Novichok or from that family.." (Again, please note the "or".) The statement
comes 1:27mins in on this YouTube video, which has a less edited version than on the Sky News
site, plus some interesting notes:
And the OPCW's executive summary, which has been made public, does not mention Novichok by
name, but it says that the results of their tests confirm the findings of the UK relating to
the chemical's identity, and show that the toxic chemical is of high purity. It says that the
name and structure of the toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the
Secretariat, available to the state parties of the OPCW.
Taken from points 10, 11 and 12 at:
I have been thinking about this as well. Please note that "nerve agent or related
compound" leaves open the possibility that the compound is not even a nerve agent.
It would be interesting to know the expert definitions of "closely related" and "family"
with regard to "nerve agent" and "novichok".
The general understanding is that it was A-234. This has never been confirmed in a public
statement, however.
Expressions like "nerve agent" subconsciously conjure up dark and sinister evildoing in
the world of James Bond and his "licence to kill", at least in the minds of most British
English speakers. The same psychology is at work when you see "Polite Notice" and
subconsciously read it as "Police Notice". Such notices are invariably unofficial, and often
impolite!
For the mischief makers, however, mere "nerve agent", with its ambiguity and murky
undertones, was not enough; "novichok" will soon be a novichok entry for 2018 in the OED.
("Новичо́к" means "newcomer", "new
guy"–as in freshman, rookie, novice.)
Modern nerve agents were first discovered in the 1930s by German industrial chemists
experimenting with organophosphorus compounds (which are defined by containing a particular
grouping of carbon, phosphorus and oxygen atoms). They were trying to make new insecticides
which would be powerful but safe(ish), but stumbled across tabun, which was powerful but very
unsafe. Given the political situation, and realising the military potential, these chemists
then pursued their research with emphasis on the extremely unsafe, and with huge success.
After 1945, having had no such success themselves, the victorious allies' chemists
"inherited" this German research; the Soviets did particularly well here, as there was much
German manufacturing infrastructure in Poland. Exactly what happened next is obviously kept
very secret, but some refinements were certainly achieved such as VX,
and–allegedly–the Novichoks. Per Chalmers Johnson: "we knew Saddam had WMD; we
had the receipts".
All very interesting (not really), and probably well-understood by a few reading this. A
problem in getting a real understanding of all this novichok/Skripal malarkey lies in some
misunderstandings of the details about the foregoing, of which few will be properly aware,
Craig included. He read history.
Firstly organophosphorus compounds are certainly not inherently toxic; DNA is an
organophosphate, as is RNA, ATP, etc. Boat loads of other basic biochemistry involves this
chemical grouping. To equate "nerve agent" (or "insecticide") with "organophosphate" is a
good start, but nothing more.
Secondly, the idea that nerve agents are new is misleading. Curare (poison) tipped arrows
have been used in South America for millenia, secretions by bufotenine toads similarly used
elsewhere, with many many other examples throughout recorded history (and beyond). These
chemicals could all semantically correctly be termed nerve agents.
Interestingly, although tabun's potency was discovered in the 30s by Schrader er al, it had
been unwittingly synthesised 40-odd years earlier. There's nothing new under the sun.
Thirdly, poisoning by ACE nerve agents (which, allegedly, includes
Новичо́к) is quick and easy(ish) to detect and
interpret in an unambiguous way. Less so more exotic and novel toxins (so obviously not eg
curare or bufotoxins, but along those lines). However, given time, a good analysis is doable
using mass spectrometry, SEM, X-ray crystallography (and other) methods.
In reply to John Bull, I wouldn't say we're "swimming in a sea of fake news, et seq", more
bobbing around like corks. Love the moniker, by the way! It works on so many levels.
I suspect the reason for the wording is that what was identified was an
acetylcholineesterase (ACE) inhibitor, which covers the major nerve agents and other
compounds as well.
Here is one of the really stupid things about the official british story line on the
Skripals. Sergei and Yulia are supposed to have left their home at around 1:30 and both
swiped their hands on the door lever and were then novihoaxed. They drove to town and parked
their car ten minutes later. They then walked through the park and stopped to hand feed the
ducks in the stream and handed bread to the young boys to also feed the ducks. They then went
on to act 2 scene 1 at zizzis or the pub and then act 2 scene two collapsed on the bench.
No young boy or duck was harmed making this play. The military grade novihoax is incapable
of killing a duck, let alone a child as this pair smeared military grade nerve poison on
everything! They have incinerated the zizzi table and heaven knows what has been incinerated
at the pub. They incinerated the Skripals front door, who knows what fate was delivered to
the BMW.
But they cant kill a duck! Mind you they can starve Skripal pets.
I wasn't trying to divert. I know quite a bit about the habits of ducks. You'll very
rarely see a dead duck anywhere in the natural world. Same with swans. They like to die in
private.
I can tell you that it's very unlikely that you'd have any reports of dead ducks in
Salisbury parks.
Before anyone puts this down to more high level trolling, I used to be a wildlife
photographer. And I mean a proper one, i.e one that crawled around in mud for days at a time
filming and photographing ducks.
The ducks were an obvious joke (of derision). The joke has a second level (not hidden);
the young boys didn't die because everyone knows the novichok poisoning story is not
true?
"No ducks or young boys were harmed in the making of this movie!"
All of the above just paraphrases/repeats what uncle tungsten said
You jobs sounds like it was really great, I envy you. But your contribution (here) sucks
big time!
There appears to be a distinct lack of cross contamination.
The Skripal car should be riven with this poison – on the steering wheel- gear stick
etc etc. If so, then reports of it being burned should follow like the table – as the
guinea pigs and the cat were.
It should be all over the bread and all over the assistant duck feeders and the ducks
should have been legion with their webbed feet up in the air.
The door handle application is a crock. If, as is claimed the alleged Novichok was pure
then who made it should be known because of its purity.
If it's Russian that should be provable. So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown.
"So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown."
Nonsense, the very name novichok is a giveaway, nobody would use a novichok except
Russians.
"They have incinerated the Zizzi table " The significance of the table in this saga
intrigues me. I recall when the 'details' (!!) of events were revealed by the MSM at the
outset we were informed that the table had been covered in nerve agent in the form of a fine
white powder and had to be incinerated. [ In fact it was so badly contaminated even Porton
Down didn't have the capability of storing it safely – that's my facetious 'take' on it
before anyone asks where I read that!]
On the assumption that it was indeed incinerated as a 'risk' item it begs a couple of obvious
questions which the official narrative hasn't explained. First, the time lapse between the
Skripals leaving Zizzis, being identified and their movements traced back to the restaurant
and 'lockdown' being applied to everything in the restaurant: we don't know but I would
hazard a guess an hour minimum. Are we really supposed to believe that the plates, dishes and
cutlery left by the Skripals weren't cleared away in all that time, and the table wasn't
wiped down? Irrespective of whether the nerve agent residue that we are supposed to believe
was being spread all over Salisbury was visible or not, surely whoever cleared the table and
washed up the dishes would definitely have been contaminated if we are to believe what we
have been told about the door handle theory.
Adding to my comment at 12.19, we mustn't also forget that glasses and dishes would also
have been removed from the table during the course of the Skripals' meal as well, not to
mention money or credit cards or card reading machines etc exchanging hands. And the drinking
glasses used at the pub. The more you think about it, the more ridiculous the official line
becomes.
Pink Floyd Legend Roger Waters Slams Skripal Case as 'Nonsense'
The former leader of Pink Floyd has also blasted the White Helmets, a dubious Syrian
volunteer organization which has been accused of staging videos of chemical attacks, as part
of the "propaganda war," echoing the dismissive comments he made earlier this year.
The UK's Momentary Lapse of Reason
In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestiya, former Pink Floyd member Roger
Waters dismissed the infamous Skripal case as "nonsense." "That the attack on the Skripals
was nonsense is clear to a person with half a brain. But some don't even have one half,
that's why they believe in this absurd," he was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
Rather like Janet Jackson's nipples,
It's been a while since we've seen the Skripals.
Not so long ago they were all over the news
As official drones droned their official views.
They said that in Salisbury wherever you look
Lurked sinister types splashing novichuk.
Door handle specialists had been imported,
Or so the BBC unquestioningly reported.
A laundry list of despicable acts
Only vaguely coincident with the salient facts.
Boris Johnson wasn't sitting on the fence,
He don't need no stinkin' evidence.
'It was them Russkies wot dunnit, no doubt about that',
Said the country's pre-eminent diplomat.
KGB thugs sent to put the boot in,
By Mr. Evil, Vladimir Stalin Putin.
Novichuk's lethality was re-emphasised again,
More deadly than others by a factor of ten.
Yet somehow miraculously the Skripals survived,
In Salisbury General they inconveniently revived.
And that was all we heard for a while
Bar a weird statement in machine-prose style.
Then a curious video right out of the blue
That looked like an advert for flyaway shampoo.
A chilled out Yulia said she was contented,
And consular access had not been prevented,
But no, she didn't want to meet up with her kin
(Not that the government would let them in).
The whole production was charmingly informal,
As though poisoning and exile were perfectly normal.
This remarkable young woman's taken it all in her stride,
Seemingly happy to go along with the ride.
Her boyfriend, her job, her dog and her flat
All peremptorily dumped at the drop of a hat.
The un-fake corporate media performed as tasked
Ensuring awkward questions remained unasked.
And all this ludicrous b-movie rigmarole
Was discreetly d-noticed down the memory hole.
The legal and diplomatic situation's now clear:
'Move along sir, nothing to see here.'
I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their
"Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda -- also about the time the Ukraine civil
war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of US/NATO/Atlantic
Council bullshit.
I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as the Off-guardian.org bloggers
who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising Guardian journos, 'comment is
free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?
With so many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The
Guardian is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read
pro-Israeli/pro-US government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.
Magnitsky story is the textbook, perfect illustration of the level
of control of CIA over media. Almost everything in official story is a lie,
still it is never challenged.
A perfectly good article, I'm sure, but why diffuse ourselves [and engender feelings of
fear and hopelessness as you express] when a strategic pressure point has presented?
Johnstone makes no mention of Bill Browder. Nor do the [100, so far] commenters.
BILL BROWDER is a key figure in the anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria. The notorious Trump
Tower meeting was about the Magnitsky Act, a fabrication by Browder to hide his financial
crimes. Browder "testified" in the Senate expressly to demonize Putin. Browder's contacts in
the IC, the Jewish Lobby, and the fawning media have enabled his propaganda assault this
week. He's appeared -- unchallenged, virtually unquestioned -- on countless talk shows. But
he's been running scared at the mention of interrogation by Russians. There are huge holes in
his story, made clear in his deposition in the Prevezon case. The truth will bring him down!
And perhaps his Deep State supporters, along with him.
Ask your Senators if they've heard/read Browder's 2015 deposition in the Prevezon
case. (See comment 161 under The Untouchable Mr. Browder? by Israel Shamir for
links.)
Research links to primary sources on #Browdergate -
...BTW, have you seen "THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES" that Phil Giraldi
posted today? Debunking anti-Russian criminal sociopaths like Bill Browder will go a long way
to improving relations. Not to mention easing pressure on the unfortunate Trump.
Full research primary links available here, including Browder's 2015 deposition in the
U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings case. Every Senator who voted to support Browder should see this.
[Any who already have, double shame!]
"... However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated. ..."
"... Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs. ..."
"... U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America. ..."
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works for
Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest of APCO's many
clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered in Guernsey. The trust
tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch got out of Russia before he was
jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after
his arrest in Russia) and for the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president
and CEO, is a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition to
Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given a distinguished
service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq
from their bases in Iraq they were trying to overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once
officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, has become a pet
instrument in U.S. and Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally brought him into
the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight of the House Intelligence
Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named him as
one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused Trump of illicit
financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's own account, he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled Steele
reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence agents, to Victoria
Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts. These included the infamous
"Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old friend Sidney Blumenthal – a
particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton – gave him notes written by a more
mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer, repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media before being
revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate the "Russiagate"
investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited but the investigation goes on
and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from "Russian agents"
and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with so much else in Washington,
double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure that effectively ended
post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington and Moscow. This act was based on a
highly contentious version of the November 16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei
Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl
Browder, head of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's
(banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights
crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in
Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical
treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit
Russian charges against himself.
In any case
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a
much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and
later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S.
citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to
extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
, "When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose economic and
travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand corruption. Browder decided this
could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky. He initiated a campaign that led to the
enactment of the Magnitsky Act. Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts,
including Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom."
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press
conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing U.S.
authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing
Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and
former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was
possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999,
back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote, "Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the U.S. attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a criminal case. But
there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general can provide no such assistance in a
politically motivated case." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there. Back in 1999,
when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the senior State Department official
managing U.S.-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we
need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's
clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically
motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital
Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the
"lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former
Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing foreign
principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the attorney does not try to
influence policy at the behest of his client." However, by disseminating anti-Magnitsky
material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was "clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore
in violation of FARA filing requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass
the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of
"Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities
scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia.
Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich
security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their
own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on
principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on
principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers
itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its
affairs.
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying
to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. Russian leaders
clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that historic processes do not depend on some
childish trick played on somebody's computer.
U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to
allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are
"unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world
sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such
interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to
Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the
country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by
America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public
opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests
including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of
the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress.
"... What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence. ..."
"... So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all. ..."
"... Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework. ..."
What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated
shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of
anyone who doesn't toe the line.
And Trump feeds off this by casting everyone as a leach who has been sucking off the US's
breast for decades. It doesn't matter the issue, to Trump US economic fragility is a hammer and
every trade and military partner a nail to be bashed over the head to pay their way.
What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten
the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and
weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence.
Trump is against that in principle, but not against the US maintaining as much of the empire
as possible.
So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business
with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it
all.
The latest major one was with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This meeting wasn't expected
to provide anything concrete, only vague assurances that projects like the Nordstream 2
pipeline goes through.
But, no breakthroughs on Crimea or Ukraine were expected nor delivered. It was, however, an
opportunity for both Putin and Merkel to be humanized in the European media. Between Putin's
attending Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl's wedding as well as the garden party photo
op background for their talk, this meeting between them was a bit of a 'charm tour' to assist
Merkel in the polls while expanding on Putin's humanity post World Cup and Helsinki.
That said, however, the statement by Merkel's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, about the need
for a new financial payment system which bypasses the US-dominated SWIFT system was the big
bombshell.
Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations
of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran.
Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than
this.
The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's
ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework.
While KYC and AML laws can at least have the appearance of validity in attempting to stop
illegal activity, targeted sanctioning is simply Orwellian.
It politicizes any and all economic activity the world over. Just look at the recent reasons
for these sanctions – unproven allegations of chemical weapons usage and electioneering.
Recent actions by the US have driven this point home to its 'allies' with stunning clarity.
Why do you think Putin brought up Bill Browder's name at the Helsinki press conference? He
knows that Browder's story is a lie and it's a lie that has been used as the foundation for the
type of political repression we're seeing today.
The US is blocking the simplest of transactions in the dollar now, claiming that any use of
the dollar is a global privilege which it can revoke at a whim. Aside from the immorality of
this, that somehow dollars you traded goods or services for on the open market are still
somehow the property of the U.S to claw back whenever it is politically convenient, this
undermines the validity of the dollar as a rational medium of exchange for trade.
This is why after the first round of sanctions over the reunification with Crimea Putin
ordered the development of a national electronic payment system. He rightly understood that
Russia needed a means by which to conduct business that was independent of US political
meddling.
So, to me, if Heiko Maas is serious about the threat posed by continued use of the dollar in
EU trade, he should look to Putin for guidance on building a system separate from SWIFT.
Moreover, Maas' statement didn't go out to the world without Merkel's approval. This tells
me that this was likely the major topic of conversation between her and Putin over the weekend.
Because a payment system that skirts the dollar is one the US can't control.
It took the Russians longer than they should have to develop MIR. Putin complained about how
slow things went because too many within the Bank of Russia and the financial community could
be thought of as fifth columnists for the West.
It's also why development of the crypto-ruble and Russia's policy on cryptocurrencies has
been so slow. It took Putin publicly ordering the work done by a certain time to get these
tasks completed. In the end, it shouldn't take the EU long to spin up a SWIFT-compliant
internal alternative. It is, after all, just code.
And that's why so many of the US's former satraps are now flexing their geopolitical muscle.
The incentives aren't there anymore to keep quiet and go along. Alternatives exist and will be
utilized.
I don't expect the EU brass to do much about this issue, the threat may be all that is
needed to call Trump's bluff. But, if in the near future you see an announcement of MIR being
accepted somewhere in the EU don't be surprised.
Because what used to be a node of political stability and investor comfort is now a tool of
chaos and abuse. And abusing your customers is never a winning business model in the long run.
Customers of the dollar will remind the US of that before this is over.
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question – from
the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton –
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naďve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: ..."
"... The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW. ..."
"... Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our votes count! How stupid are we? ..."
With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider
that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384
– Seditious conspiracy:
".. or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United
States,"
If moral force is deemed a correct legal interpretation, the growing number of men and women
becoming aware of the scandal, in the United States particularly and around the Earth
generally, could face 20 years of imprisonment. Of course, "by force" in the clause is meant as
kinetic or physical force, so people demanding the profoundly consequential truth about
Browder-Magnitsky have nothing in to worry about.
Political reality in America reveals that the two-party system is mythical, but actually
that Americans are experiencing a one-party structure serving members of the transnational
capitalist class – named and described in the recently published book "Giants: The Global
Power Elites" by Sonoma State (CA) Professor Peter Phillips (co-founder of Project Censored
with Mickey Huff).
Confirmation is found in the unanimous -- total silence over the historic magnitude
Browder-Magnitsky scandal of John Brennan(D), Gina Haspell(R), Loretta Lynch(D), Jeff
Sessions(R), Ben Cardin(D), John McCain(R), all 535 U.S. elected representatives(D, R and I),
Hillary Clinton(D), Mike Pompeo(R), Joseph Biden(D), Mike Pence(R), Barack Obama(D), Donald
Trump(R)
The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is
unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international
relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity
learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW.
Replybackwardsevolution , August 17, 2018 at 3:36 am
Jerry – I saw a Youtube video by Professor Peter Phillips a few months back where he
outlined the concentration of wealth by these transnational corporations. It was a very good
video, and he's right – something definitely needs to be done about these people. They
are going to either kill us with war or kill us by ruining the planet. It's like they're
addicted to greed and cannot help themselves, almost like a drug addict. We'll have to stop
them.
Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that
these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part
of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our
votes count! How stupid are we?
I don't know where it's all going to end, but we'd better start fighting back before these
addicts take us all out.
Look at the Skripal affair. The British government's account of what
happened is hilariously unconvincing, and the Foreign Minister himself was
caught red-handed in
a lie of such monstrous proportions
that he was hopelessly compromised
and his remaining audience of five true believers could no longer take anything
he said as factual.
Far from the only example
of his instinctive lying, I might add. But
the British government demands you take them at their word: they can't show
anyone any evidence – 'coz it's National Security, innit? – but any alternate
narrative other than the official account of what happened is fake news.
Horrific misinformation. Any western authority granted the mandate to rule
on what is misinformation is going to abuse that power to ensure only its
side of a story (which always has at least two) is the one that is heard.
Period. You would like to believe they're above that, but they're not.
Well, that was a longer diversion than I planned; let's get back to Caitlin
Johnstone. Here's what she said, in one of those dozy tweets I dislike so
much.
"Friendly public service reminder that John McCain has devoted
his entire political career to slaughtering as many human beings as possible
at every opportunity, and the world will be improved when he finally dies".
I'm sure it was that last bit that sent the 'fake news' crowd over the
precipice, because we are conditioned as western citizens to never speak
ill of the dead, and the prohibition plainly extends to the almost-dead.
The Undead, if you prefer. That's not the first time Ms. Johnstone, who
is nothing if not plain-spoken, has expressed the conviction that the expiration
of John McCain is an event which is long overdue. It may well be regarded
as insensitive, although I honestly cannot disagree with it, as his continued
persistence on this mortal coil means a continued manifestation of his malign
influence, and he continues to exercise his privilege to speak on behalf
of his constituents to vote for the most destructive course every time it
is offered as an option.
If I may be allowed one more tiny diversion, one I have certainly advanced
before on the unaccountable American fascination with free speech, I believe
it bears directly on Ms. Johnstone's legal right to say insensitive things,
according to established legal precedent. On October 18th, 1998, the Westboro
Baptist Church – aka Lunatic Space-Cadets Anonymous –
picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard
, a gay man who was beaten unconscious,
tied to a fence and left for dead by a couple of homophobic assailants,
and who died of his injuries. The congregation carried signs which bore
such inflammatory slogans as "No Tears for Queers", "Fag Matt Burns in Hell",
and the more perennial but generalized "God Hates Fags". No action was taken
against the church. The family of a decorated US Marine who died in Iraq
later took Westboro Baptist Church to court for their provocative baiting
at solemn occasions like their son's funeral, and lost. The Supreme Court
of the United States ruled Westboro's right to free speech did not infringe
on the family's right to conduct a funeral without interference.
So any prohibition on publicly wishing John McCain would cease his irritating
evasion of the Grim Reaper is imaginary, faith-based and entirely without
legal merit.
Getting back to the issue, Ms. Johnstone's initial antagonist – Patrick
– tweeted in response;
"What a miserable, despicable person. You are
the definition of deplorable. I may frequently disagree with Senator John
McCain and Meghan McCain with all due criticism, but they should sue you
for libel. This is disgusting."
What is
libel
? Libel is
"to
publish
in
print
(including
pictures),
writing
or
broadcast
through
radio,television
or
film,
an
untruth
about
another
which
will
do
harm
to
that
person
or
his/her
reputation,
by
tending
to
bring
the
target
into
ridicule,
hatred,
scorn
or
contempt
of
others.
Libel
is
the
written
or
broadcast
form
of
defamation,
distinguished
from
slander
which
is
oral
defamation.
It is
a
tort
(civilwrong)
making
the
person
or
entity
(like
a
newspaper,
magazine
or
political
organization)
open
to
a
lawsuit
for
damages
by
the
person
who
can
prove
the
statement
about
him/her
was
a
lie.
"
Hey, I know – let's play lawyer, wanna? No costly law degree required;
I already said we were playing. But since we've already demonstrated that
Ms. Johnstone can't be (successfully) sued for libel for expressing the
opinion that the world will be a better place once John McCain has popped
his pricey tasseled clogs, then the point of libelous contention must be
the allegation that John McCain has availed himself of every opportunity
to vote for policies or undertakings which contributed to the slaughter
of human beings. A customary and absolute defense against the charge of
libel is establishment that the allegedly libelous statement is, in fact,
true. Can we do that? I'll bet we can.
Although he was very much a part of the Vietnam War, John McCain was
not a politician at that time, and Ms. Johnstone specified that he had used
his
political
career to press for military action which resulted
in many casualties. I don't think the modification of 'as many as possible'
would be enforceable under libel laws, as it would be too difficult to prove.
Could there have been even more casualties, on both sides, in any military
action in which Senator McCain had a vote? Probably, but there is no realistic
way to determine if they were either limited or aggravated by his direct
participation in the vote. By the same token, the contribution of his vote
to any casualties which
did
take place is, I think, inarguable.
So let's start with America's next big war – the Gulf War against Iraq,
Take One. John McCain
voted for war
. Were there casualties? You could say that; 294 Americans
died in the Gulf War. The UK lost 47. It's worth noting, as an aside, that
Syria was a US ally in the Gulf War, and had 2 of its soldiers killed. How
about Iraqis? Well, nobody seems to have kept a very accurate count – they
were, after all, the enemy, and killing them was encouraged – and the
official American count
is established from Iraqi prisoner-of-war records,
and was featured in a report commissioned by the US Air Force. It estimates
20,000-22,000 combat deaths overall, in both the air and ground campaigns.
Was that a slaughter? You tell me. And before we move on from the Gulf War,
John McCain
voted
(after the war was over) against providing automatic annual cost-of-living
adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. Four years later, McCain supported
an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and other federal agencies by $8.9 billion. The following year, McCain voted
against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion.
As of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a
quarter of the U.S. troops who participated, had been declared permanently
disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. You may only be 'slaughtered'
if you are dead, but the irrevocable changes for the worse in the quality
of life for thousands of Americans who were only doing what their country
ordered them to do should count for something, what do you say?
Gee; I'm starting to get a little mad at McCain. Well, let's move on.
In 2003, the US government of the day decided that Saddam Hussein had
not learned his lesson the first time, and so this time he had to go. Accordingly,
the USA polled its allies for military forces who were not otherwise occupied,
and had another go at it. John McCain said hell yes, let's get it on.
American military casualties
, 4,287 killed, 30,187 wounded. A bit more
of a slaughter than the first attempt. The advent of ceramic-plate body
armor protected the soldier's body core, so that many more survived injuries
that would have been so horrific they would surely have killed them. The
downside is that many lived who lost limbs too badly damaged to save, and
were crippled for whatever life remained to them. The
Iraqi casualty figures
were again an estimate, although better documented; by the most reliable
count, somewhere between 182,000 and 204,000 Iraqis were killed. Needlessly
and pointlessly slaughtered, many of them; American troops grew so fearful
as a result of the steady drip of casualties among their own that they frequently
opened fire on families in cars with children simply because they did not
obey instructions in a language they did not speak or understand. At Mahmudiya,
in March 2006, Private Steven Green and his co-conspirators
raped and killed
14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza, killed her family and
set her body afire to blur the details of the crime. When Iraqi soldiers
arrived on the scene, Green and his fellow murderers blamed it on Sunni
insurgents.
The following year, President Bush approved a 'surge' of 20,000 additional
troops, which John McCain so energetically agitated for that it became known
informally as 'the McCain doctrine'. That's after he claimed in 2004 that
if an elected government in Iraq asked that US forces leave, they would
have to go even if they were not happy with the security situation. He also
recognized, the following year, that Iraqis resented the American military
presence, and the sooner and more dramatically it could be reduced, the
better it would be for everyone. I guess if you lay claim to both sides
of the argument, you're bound to convince someone that you know what you're
doing.
That same year, 2007, John McCain
voted against a requirement for specifying minimum time periods between
deployments
for soldiers deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. When they need you back in the meat-grinder, you go, never
mind how many times you've already been there. Let's just keep in mind,
before we leave Iraq, that the entire case for war the second time around
was fabricated with wild tales of awful weapons Saddam supposedly had which
could kill Americans
while they were still in America
, and so he
had to be dealt with. When it was suggested to the Defense Secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld, that America should concentrate on Afghanistan, since that is
where the backers of the 9-11 strike against America had fled, he
mused that there were 'no good targets in Afghanistan'
, although there
were 'lots of good targets in Iraq'. Some researchers suggest he was after
a 'teachable moment' for America's enemies which would convince them of
America's irresistible power. While John McCain assessed that Donald Rumsfeld
was the worst Secretary of Defense ever, his complaint was not that Rumsfeld
was not killing enough people, but that he showed insufficient commitment
to winning the war.
Libya. Hoo, boy. In 2009, John McCain – together with fellow die-faster-please
senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham –
visited Tripoli
, to discuss Libya's acquisition of American military
equipment. John McCain assured Gadaffi (his son, actually) that America
was eager to provide Libya with the equipment it needed. Hardly more than
a year later, he espoused the position that Gadaffi must be removed from
power because he had American blood on his hands from the Lockerbie bombing.
In 2011, he visited the Libyan 'rebels', and
publicly urged Washington to consider a ground attack
to forcibly remove
Gaddafi from power. Just a friendly public service reminder; the Lockerbie
bombing was most likely carried out by Syria, was – according to pretty
reliable testimony –
rigged by the American intelligence services to finger Libya
, and probably
the stupidest thing Gaddafi ever did was to admit to it anyway and pay compensation,
in an effort to move on.
Anyway, more war. What the fuck is it with this guy?
Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else
would you call it when NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy
is
hiding his tanks and artillery from its watchful eye
inside the water
pipes of the Great Man-Made River? What they actually wanted was an excuse
to bomb it – which they did,
as well as the pumping stations
which brought abundant fresh water to
the coastal region, in the certain knowledge that it would create a crisis
for the civilian population. Which, by the bye, is against just about every
convention on the subject ever written.
Here are some of the pipe sections, when they were being trucked to the
assembly point. As the article suggests, these sections are 4 meters across;
but remember, that's at their widest point. They are only 4 meters for about
a foot, because a water pipe is a circle.
Libya mostly used the T-72 Main Battle Tank, and those would be the ones
NATO wanted to eliminate, since the others were considerably older. A T-72,
width-wise, would just fit in a 4-meter water pipe, as it is
3.6
meters wide
. However, it's also over 45 tons in weight. The concrete
rings were designed to carry free-flowing water, not a 45-ton tank. Would
they take that kind of weight, distributed only over a 7-meter length? Where
is there an entry point to the water-pipe that is the same width as the
widest diameter of the pipe? As discussed, the water pipe is 4 meters wide
at its widest point. But the T-72 is 2.3 meters high. The tank would only
fit if it was as high as a lunchbox, because the 4-meter width narrows dramatically
from the widest point; it's a circle. Even where it did fit, it would be
supported only on the outer edges of its tracks, and you have to cut the
4-meter measurement approximately in half, because the upper portion of
the tank would have to be above the point where the tracks touched on each
side. The idea was preposterous from the outset, and it speaks to what fucking
simpletons western government believes make up its populations that they
would dare to put such nutjobbery in print. A T-72 could not fit in a 4-meter
water pipe. The notion was demonstrably foolish. But NATO wanted to destroy
the water system, so it made up a reason that would allow it to be a well-meaning
potential victim of deadly violence.
According to
The Guardian
– the same source that told you Gadaffi
was hiding his tanks in the plumbing – the death toll in the Libyan civil
war prior to the NATO intervention was about 1000-2000. According to the
National Transitional Council, the outfit the west engineered to rule post-Gaddafi
Libya,
the final butcher's bill was about 30,000 dead
. The very day after NATO
folded its tents – figuratively speaking, as the western role was entirely
air support for the flip-flop-wearing rebels – and went home, al Qaeda
raised its black flag over the Benghazi courthouse
.
Caitlin Johnstone claimed John McCain used his political career to advocate
for military interventions which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers
of human beings. Is that accurate? What say you, members of the jury? In
each of the cases above, John McCain used his political influence, over
and above his vote, to argue, advocate, hector and plead for military intervention
by the armed forces of the United States of America and such coalition partners
as could be rounded up. In each of the cases above, the necessity
of toppling the evildoing dictator was exaggerated out of all proportion,
portrayed as an instant and refreshing liberation for his people, and as
only the first phase of a progressive plan which would turn the subject
country into a prosperous, western-oriented market democracy. In each of
the cases above the country is now a divided and ruined failed state whose
pre-war situation was significantly better than its miserable present. And
in each of the cases above, a lot of people were killed who could otherwise
have reasonably expected to be alive today.
Also, each of the cases above is chronologically separated from the others
by a sufficient span for it to be quite evident what a cluster-fuck the
previous operation was, so that anyone disposed to learn from his mistakes
might have approached the situation differently as it gained momentum, argued
for caution based on previously-recorded clusterfuckery, pleaded for reason
to prevail and for improved dialogue to be a priority. Not John McCain.
He learned precisely the square root of nothing from previous catastrophes,
and plunged into the next catastrophe with the enthusiasm most remarked
among those who are not all there, as the vernacular describes it. He not
only voted for war every time, he expended considerable effort in cajoling
and persuading the reluctant to go along.
Perhaps the introduction here of the
definition for 'warmonger'
would be helpful to the jury. To wit; "O
ne
who
advocates
or
attempts
to
stir
up
war. A person who fosters warlike ideas or advocates war."
Synonyms: hawk, aggressor, belligerent, militarist, jingoist, sabre-rattler.
There, John; I just saved you the trouble of writing an epitaph.
Will the world be a better place once John McCain is gone? Difficult
to say, really, and the present state of affairs in the world argues strongly
that it will not. But it will certainly be no poorer for his passing, and
if he were to be replaced politically by an individual who took the trouble
to do a little research, muse on previous experience, and review all the
available options before voting to send in the Marines why, that would be
a victory for everyone in a world where victory is increasingly not even
a possibility.
Was Caitlin Johnstone right? Broadly speaking, and going on the information
available at the time her statement was made, yes; she was.
151 THOUGHTS ON "
IN THE MATTER OF THE PEOPLE
VS. CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, THE DEFENSE RESTS.
"
Reply
Good article. The same 2000 dead hysteria (a number that included
800 dead Serbs) was used in 1999 to justify the bombing of Serbia.
After the UCK terrorists took over Kosovo together with NATzO, many
more Serbs were butchered than the mostly 1200 terrorists that NATzO
was so worried about. I suspect that McShitStain was a big time
proponent of the gang rape of Serbia as well.
McShitStain is merely a dumb US attack dog. He does his masters'
bidding well and thankfully there is some justice in this world
that he gets cancer. I really do hope he pops off this mortal coil.
I have seen very good people die from brain cancer and it would
be very unfair if this sick nutjob recovered.
We are living through a rather nasty time. The so-called PC left
in the US is totally unhinged and engaged in witch hunts togther
with the lie factory US MSM. I refuse to believe that "antifa" and
all these so-called social justice warriors are real leftists. They
are engaged in fascism and their backers are the corporate oligarchy
of the USA. At this stage it looks like Germany during the 1930s
(no, Trump is not the Hitler equivalent) in that a state of hysteria
has taken over the US political scene. All the Hillary worshippers
(the Democrats are fake "leftists") actually believe the Russia
conspiracy theory crap and want revenge. They also believe CNN and
the rest of the MSM that they can roll over Russia with little effort.
CNN has been a critical booster for all of the US wars since its
formation. It incites Americans to support whatever war criminal
enterprise that the US elites want to engage in. McShitStain is
a cog in this war machine.
The world definitely will be a better place after Jurassic John
goes the way of the dinosaurs if only because whoever replaces him
as Senator for Arizona won't have anything like the grubby contacts
he has all over the world (let alone the scale of such a network)
and will have to build up his/her own set.
Thanks Mark for another fiery post. Be careful you don't combust.
Her sequential-talking-points delivery certainly suggests
she is being groomed, or at a minimum has been prepared for
the question as it is sure to come up. But for someone who claims
that nobody has any idea what the future might bring, she certainly
got a lot of mileage out of her answer.
Amazing how she looks more and more like her mother with
each passing day. By the time she decides that, yes, she
will run for the Presidency, not only will she be a virtual
physical clone but her brain will also have remodelled itself
into Klintonator Killer Kranium Version 2.0.
It would be most ironic if Bubba-hotep had been cuckolded
himself, given his skirt-chasing habit.
Hearsay suggests that she is already so broadly disliked
among those who have had to work for or with her that
it seems probable she would have a really hard time
building a base. Before she could get seriously into
running for public office she would have to convince
the kingmakers that she has real star potential, and
I just don't see it.
Incredible: one Clinton Foundation employee nearly
committed suicide due to the stress caused by Bubba-Hotep
and his li'l princess through their constant meddling
and raising issues that staff were expected to chase.
The Kennedy clan had formerly attempted the
same gambit by pushing Caroline into running
for office; but she failed miserably and retreated
back into private life.
"
Despite furious Western attempts to isolate the Kremlin,
countries still want to collaborate with Russia. By arms sales and
cooperation, Russia is using its military strength to increase its
geopolitical presence in the world".
You don't say!
Interestingly, the commenters to the article (so far) seem just
to say "So what?":
Silly article WE have exercises all the time, including "Live"
firing in the North of Scotland
not to mention the live exercises in which my nephew regularly
participates with his and other British army armoured regiments
on the Canadian prairie.
Of course, there are not a few head-banger readers of the Independent:
I would even doubt
[Europe's]
capacity to remove
Russia from Poland never mind the Baltics if Russia decided to take
them and the only reason they have not decided to do so is the big
stick that is the US military which is especially potent under Trump.
Same with China and Taiwan, Iran and Saudi etc etc.
Only Uncle Sam can hold the Red Beast at bay!
Pentagonbot?
Why not?
If anyone dare argue the "Kremlin" case in the British press,
he is promptly accused of being a "Kremlinbot" and asked such inane
questions as "What's the weather like in St. Petersburg today, Vladimir?"
Galeotti uses the expression "collaborate with Russia" and
not "do business with Russia".
Collaborate?
With the "Evil Empire" against the "Exceptional Nation",
whose "manifest destiny" is to bring freedom and democracy to
the rest of the world -- and billions of dollars to the USA?
Even "collaborate" is a spineless term when referring
to Russia.
The proper word is "appease". As in "appeasing" Hitler,
while also tossing in a Munich reference!
More dirt on McCain, whose source I now forget, but, if I rightly
recall, it was a comment made by a US citizen on some blog way back.
I have posted it before:
Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several
accounts ("Why Does the Nightingale Sing", for example), he only
got into the Naval Academy for a free college degree because Dad
and GrandDad were Admirals, and he should have been kicked out several
times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble
often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down
on his third mission over Vietnam, and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning
from POW status, he passed a physical and regained flight status
as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service that allowed
generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA
Times mentioned this when McCain was insisting he was fit to serve
as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000 a year from
the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security
retirement, while all the while working full-time in the US Senate.
So is he retired, or disabled, or gainfully employed? He is all
three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs reform
to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while
he was a POW. Soon after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy
woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so angry they never spoke
to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially
got divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially
since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting,
he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy
to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour.
McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government
dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase
he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health
care his entire life, yet thinks it's nothing commoners deserve.
While running for president and attacking the poor a rare good reporter
asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe
seven.
Thanks, Mark, for another analysis of the opinion-management
being rolled out across the media.
The stand-out memory I have of the great Ken Kesey novel "One
Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is the description of a "pecking party"
inside a battery hen building in which one bird is injured, a speck
of blood appears and the crazed neighbours peck it to death. Unfortunately
they get spattered and their neighbours take up the pecking a bloodbath
ensues. That seems like a decent analogy to the current attempts
to close down any alternative to official narrative promotion.
Thanks, Cortes, and to all my well-wishers. I loved 'One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', it was at least as memorable as
'Flowers for Algernon' for me, and I read them both at around
the same point in my life, when I was in my early 20's.
If it's really true that the centre cannot hold, The Empire
is going to have an increasingly hard time cloaking its lies.
Of course, the west could simply return to the values of brotherhood
and the common struggle it continues to espouse but never really
seriously practiced. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for
that to happen.
"Flowers For Algernon" is such a stunning work it's a
real shame that it's not better known (at least in the UK).
On the news management front, I get the sense that the narrative
is slipping away from control. Over a couple of months I've
noticed that the free "Metro" papers have been left unread
in largish amounts on some buses (busy routes) – when they
were being snaffled up until recently. People can sense
that they are being herded, I think, and resent it.
This was stated by President Petro Poroshenko, speaking at an
international volunteer and the veterans' forum: "Where we are --
there is the Ukraine."
"Almost 160 thousand combatants remain as operational first reservists",
said Poroshenko.
According to him, all who are in the reserve are ready to take
up arms again and "to do this professionally and with a high degree
of training".
He added that the day after tomorrow, the Ukraine will celebrate
27 years of Independence, but added that the clockr could have stopped
at year 23 if defenders of the Ukraine had not acted against the
aggressor and not defended the Ukrainian land: "The guarantor of
the independence of the Ukraine are the armed forces of the Ukraine!
The guarantor of our freedom, of our statehood, our independence
are 344 thousand combatants in the east of our state."
In Mistecka Arsenal in Kiev has started an international volunteer
and the veteran's forum "Where we are -- there is the Ukraine". The
event will run for two days, on August 22 and 23. The purpose of
the forum is to highlight the need for the formation of a correct
and effective state policy as regards the reintegrating veterans
into society in general and to bring the authorities into this process.
Among the participants are representatives of more than 120 veterans
and volunteer organizations from different regions of the Ukraine
and from abroad.
Got to help all those volunteer batallion fighters to get back
to leading a normal, civilian life after killing civilians at the
front!
"Just a friendly public service reminder; the Lockerbie bombing
was most likely carried out by Syria, was – according to pretty
reliable testimony – rigged by the American intelligence services
to finger Libya, and probably the stupidest thing Gaddafi ever did
was to admit to it anyway and pay compensation, in an effort to
move on."
Most likely carried out by Syria?
Why is it most likely that Syria was behind the bombing?
I don't know that it was; that was the judgment arrived upon
in the article, and that it was retaliation for something or
other which I also forget. So they probably just put two and
two together and assessed that it was a Syrian payback (or perhaps
had other evidence of which I am unaware), but it suited the
events of the day for it to be Libya. So Libya got framed up
for it.
"We and the Americans bombed Pan Am Flight 103 to persuade
South African foreign minister Pik Botha to sign the Tripartite
Accord; thus with the Americans protecting our vested interests
both political and financial. The destruction of Pan Am
Flight 103 with the Americans demonstrated our intent and
was also a threat, and removing Bernt Carlsson was a convenient
and powerful signal, i.e. nobody is untouchable"
Five passengers on the Pan Am 103 flight were a Defense
Intelligence Agency team carrying a suitcase that contained
a large amount of heroin, documents, cash and travellers'
cheques. The DIA team had been in Lebanon searching for
US hostages held by Hezbollah and had stumbled across a
heroin-trafficking ring led by a Syrian drug baron, Monzer
al Khassar, who was linked to Colonel Oliver North's activities
in ferrying weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua. Al Khassar
himself was close to Rifat al Assad, a brother of the then
Syrian President Hafez al Assad and apparently a CIA asset.
At the same time there were people in the Iranian government
looking for revenge against the US for the USS Vincennes'
shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus passenger jet. A bomb expert
(Ahmed Jibril) from a Syrian-based Palestinian rebel group
was hired. Jibril knew of al Khassar's dope scheme and persuaded
him to fit a bomb inside the heroin suitcase that the DIA
took onto the plane. Another possibility is that al Khassar
and his CIA connections knew that the Iranians were planning
revenge and saw an opportunity to kill two birds (appeasing
the Iranians, wiping out the DIA whistle-blowers who would
have revealed the CIA connection with dope-smuggling) with
one stone.
So if Lockerbie was payback, then it was CIA payback
against the DIA and if it was retaliation, then it was Iranian
retaliation against the USS Vincennes' attack on the Iranian
Airbus.
A question for all the impeach Trump for colluding with Russia
weenies:
How would Cohen know anything about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Why would Trump need a lawyer for this illegal activity? If you
are going to claim that Trump just happened to share this information
with Cohen, then why not anyone else? Is Cohen some sort of consigliere
or confession booth priest for Trump?
This whole farce with Cohen is pathetic BS. Cohen will be told
to say this and that my Mueller and this will be deemed "evidence".
Americans are really a few cards short of a full deck to swallow
this drivel.
BTW, the new consensus emerging amongst the "deplorables" who
do not share the official CNN fake news narrative, is that the dirty
dossier produced by Steele was a Russian machination. This is truly
overwhelming in its retardation. Why the f*ck would Russia undermine
Trump by colluding with Hillary when Hillary was basically foaming
at the mouth to start a war over Russia's intervention in Syria.
Hillary's Democratic Party has ignited the current anti-Russian
hysteria in America, so there is no way that Russia was colluding
with her or her party. Americans are apparently too brainwashed
or dumb to distinguish between the involvement of Russian nationals
and the Russian state. You can find dozens of nationals from any
country to do anything with the right motivation.
"Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the
felony charges, all of them related to various forms of financial
chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and Manafort
of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in
the courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to
the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two instances, violating
federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically
inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and
adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he was acting "in coordination
and at the direction of a candidate for federal office."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/22/trum-a22.html
My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in
carrying out either himself or in concert with others willful
ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are
CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office.
Don't think so??
If the following transgressions were sufficient to 'nail'
their intended targets -which is what happened-
then Trump's acts in attempting to hush up Stormy (supra) COULD
achieve the same result.
Whether or not some faction of TPTB has the WILL to impeach
him is another matter.
"Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's
white-collar crimes is perfectly reasonable, even in a probe
directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's
not unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is
the primary example -- to bring down a criminal conspiracy
in any way they can," Waxman pointed out."
Yup!!!
"Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted
co-conspirator. Current Justice Department guidelines say
a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a
legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder
for Republicans to stand united in opposition to impeaching
the president.
When President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted
co-conspirator by a grand jury, he opted to resign instead
of face impeachment proceedings. Trump seems unlikely to
step down, however. Any further efforts on his part to block
the investigation into his campaign would put the Justice
Department in uncharted territory"
Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one
who had special insider access to the leader of a powerful,
closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah
and Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia
cases. We both know that in the mob -- and perhaps in this
White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire
hierarchy."
From links I've already posted , getting a USC Title
18 conviction of Trump is not necessarily
that required to charge him with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Although there is some dispute in legal circles as to what
exactly constitutes a sufficent basis of facts upon which
impeachment can be
based.
There is simply no evidence of Russia collusion.
Anything that Cohen says is pure fabrication. It is
tiresome for this "witness" BS to be "sufficient". Last
year CNN et al. were all hot and bothered by the supposed
bank trail proving Trump's financial links to Putin.
That would have been a story. Cohen can sing anything
that Mueller wants him to as his testicles are twisted
harder.
But it will establish an unsavory precedent – that
any sitting president can be taken out merely by selecting
one of his/her aides and then threatening them with
crushing penalties for some silly transgression or other or
they can turn state's evidence. Anyone who ever dreamed
of ascending to the nation's highest office would have
to know that, by facilitating this process, they were
handing the lawmakers the means to remove any future
president.
But, as I said, I don't care. Hillary can't win it
now, Pence is a dink, The Donald would dig in his heels
and fight all the way out, probably causing great damage,
but if he went, so what? He's a dreadful president.
And the USA would be in political chaos.
Trump should have fired Sessions for recusing
himself from this Congress instituted witch-hunt.
The job of Sessions is to be over-seer of the Special
Counsel investigation. Mueller cannot have special
rights, he must follow the rules. Shaking down people
around Trump for tax evasion or assorted other unrelated
crimes is not following the rules. It is pure Inquisition
tactics.
I would not be so quick to write Trump off as
dreadful. He basically sabotaged the two hyped up
cruise missile attacks on Syria. Even though his
hands are tied and his mouth is gagged by US corporate-run
"freedom", he managed to make both those attacks
totally ineffective. If he was a loyal servant of
the US elites, he would have kept sending more and
more missiles and actually ordered NATzO or "coalition"
jets to bomb Syrian targets seriously. The sporadic
Israeli and coalition attacks have been basically
irrelevant.
He is rocking the boat as much as he can. This
creates are sorts of noise. This noise is not a
metric of his efforts and success.
"But it will establish an unsavory precedent
– that any sitting president can be taken out merely
by selecting one of his/her aides and then threatening
them with crushing penalties for some silly transgression
or other or they can turn state's evidence."
Precedent set by Bill Clinton's personal Jauvert
Ken Starr, in his multiple indictments of Webster
Hubble.
"Indict my dog. Indict my cat."
A lot of it is Dems paying rethuglicans back
in their own coin.
Clinton's "personal Jauvert" – did you mean
Inspector Javert of Les Misérables?
Much as I appreciate any literary reference,
especially involving Victor Hugo, this allusion
would only hold if Bubba had managed to turn
his life around, become a virtual saint like
Valjean, and devoted his remaining years to
the cause of the oppressed masses.
hahahahahha
We'll see. If the Democrats are successful at having
him impeached, they will probably create a special holiday
recognizing Stormy Daniels, or give her the Presidential
Medal of Freedom or something. I frankly don't care – he
beat Hillary, and that's something she can never erase or
cover up.
I imagine they sweated him with the possibility of spending
the rest of his life in prison; all the newspaper accounts of
his testimony spoke of his shaky voice, and it's typically pretty
hard to scare a lawyer. They likely told him that he could just
disappear into the prison system and that there would be nothing
at all he could do about it.
ZURICH (Reuters) – One of Switzerland's largest banks, Credit
Suisse, has frozen roughly 5 billion Swiss francs ($5 billion) of
money linked to Russia to avoid falling foul of U.S. sanctions,
according to its accounts, further increasing pressure on Moscow .
Credit Suisse is being cautious in part because of earlier bad
experiences. In 2009, it reached a $500 million settlement with
U.S. authorities over dealings with sanctions-hit Iran.
There have been other instances where European banks have been
punished. In 2014, France's BNP Paribas (
BNPP.PA
)
agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion for violating U.S. sanctions
against Sudan, Cuba and Iran.
Switzerland's banking watchdog FINMA does not require Swiss
banks to enforce foreign sanctions, but has said they have a responsibility
to minimize legal and reputational risks.
I hope the present Russian administration and those yet to come
remember this.
Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their
wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard
lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers.
I doubt very many ordinary Russians lost anything, but
they got a pretty useful lesson for free. The west wants
Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break,
no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw
away, no western business they will not throw under the
bus if they think they will realize that goal.
I wonder whose money this was. Russian offshoring is rather
sneaky and uses all sorts of places like Cyprus and the Cayman
Islands through various instruments. As of 2014, simply keeping
money in a western bank was no longer an option.
So this is either illegal money or Credit Suisse is simply
lying.
That's a good point; some time ago (you're probably correct
that it was 2014, or around there) the Russian government
did somewhat formalize its advice to not keep money in western
banks. As I best remember, it was only mandatory for members
of government. But it seems unlikely the government would
order all its ministers and senators to move all monies
held in western banks out of those banks, and then leave
government funds there itself. So perhaps some oligarch/s
got burned.
Possibly, but I doubt it. Saint Mikhail's money,
what there is left of it, is transparent to western
investigations, and if they could think of a good
reason they would give him a lot more, especially
if he were even remotely popular in Russia and they
thought he might be a candidate for insertion into
Putin's role.
Now Credite Suisse says that Russian accounts have not been
frozen, that the Bank had reclassified certain assets placed
under sanctions. By these actions no Russian customers have
been affected, reports
TASS
.
Meanwhile, in the world's greatest dirty money laundry, it
has been revealed that the London branch of Deutsche Bank has
issued threats to the Russian government.
Deutsche Bank AG threatened to end business with Russia's
government earlier this year in a letter sent to the state demanding
that it provide more information related to know-your-customer
records.
The lender's London branch sent the correspondence in
June saying the business relationship could be terminated if
Russia failed to submit the documents within 30 days. While
that deadline has long since elapsed, Russia never answered
the letter and the German bank hasn't followed up on the initial
request, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
Arschlöcher!
I was working only yesterday and last week as well in the
main office of Deutsche Bank here in Moscow.
Never saw no Fritzes there, only Ivans. Seemed to be business
as usual to me..
Hmmm ..When the limited hangout truth expose' is found to be
MSM vetted lies:
"Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows:
"[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for
untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests
are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan
Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance
to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their
own governments and corporations," CBC News – Website wants to take
whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview
in The New Yorker:
******"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes
in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of
assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral
behavior in their own governments and corporations. (quoted in WikiLeaks
and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis
added)*****
Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially
bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality -- including
the US administration." (Ibid)
From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive
regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's
elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives.
Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included
Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing
secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices
of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change"
and fostering "color revolutions" in different parts of the World."
"The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New
York Times
Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The
New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved
in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist
has also played an important role.
While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment
and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of
embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream
media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David
E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)
This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream
media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several
major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange"
"In the coming month, following Eid al-Adha (August 21st), Iraq
will be on the horns of a dilemma. The Federal Court has confirmed
the results of the manual recount of the May parliamentary elections
with insignificant changes to the previously announced results.
After the holiday the Iraqi coalition that can assemble more than
165 parliamentary seats will have to choose the new ruler of the
country. Whoever is selected as Prime Minister, whether he is pro-US,
pro-Iran or even a neutral personality, will not save Iraq from
serious consequences and difficult years ahead. If the new government
implements the sanctions on Iran announced by interim PM Abadi,
internal unrest and insecurity can be expected in the country. Many
Iraqis, including some armed groups, will refuse what is perceived
as US interference, and US forces themselves will likely come under
fire. If the sanctions are not implemented, Iraq will face serious
US sanctions in turn, international companies will pull out, and
the return of the terrorist group ISIS (ISIL, Daesh) cannot be excluded.
Any decision will certainly have a major effect on the economy of
Mesopotamia, and perhaps even on its security."
"In Iraq, there is no political consensus over strategic decisions:
the unilateral decision on Iran sanctions taken by interim Prime
Minister Haidar Abadi needs parliamentary approval so that the representative
of the Iraqi people can assume responsibility for taking the country
into an unknown future. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry has rejected
Abadi's unilateral decision, and so did most Iraqi political groups
with Ministers in the government. The Iraqi Vice President Nouri
al-Maliki, Abadi's Da'wa party, and many others, rejected the Prime
Minister's action against Iran and in favour of the US. Many said
overtly that "Iraq will certainly not be part of the US plan to
hit Iran."
Before the infallible, exceptional chauvinists get too smug,
they should consider that this missile has essentially no chance
against a maneuvering (i.e. non ballistic) missile with a speed
of Mach 20 such as the "Kinzhal".
The amazing new capability owes much to an active seeker
in the missile rather than the traditional semi-active homing.
What's the drawback to an active seeker? That's right; it is
vulnerable to jamming and decoys.
Active seeking a randomly varying trajectory target is
not a guarantee of success. In addition, Russia is not some
rinky dink banana republic which cannot give the Kinzhal
active trajectory modification capability. It would be a
rather tractable upgrade. The key here is response lag.
A Mach 4+ missile engaging a Mach 10 missile does not have
the time to overcome its response lag.
Also, think of the ESSM as standing still as the Kinzhal
moves at Mach 5+. So there is a narrow cone of interception
that limits the ESSM; it has to attack the Mach 10 missile
from the front. So it must detect it early enough. The standard
design feature of Soviet and Russian anti-ship missiles
is near surface flight below radar detection altitude. The
Kinzhal could be undetected until 14 km from the target.
At Mach 10 this gives it 14000/3320 = 4.2 seconds to impact.
During this small window the ESSM has to launch and reach
top speed. That would take at least 2 seconds. In the remaining
2.2 seconds the Kinzhal can deflect its trajectory much
more easily than the ESSM can respond and thus can effectively
delay it from interception. This requires a trajectory animation
to make vivid. But the US Navy is clearly compensating for
the shock of the Kinzhal characteristics.
That's true, and it's true of all SAMs that their
weakest intercept profile is that against a crossing
target; the textbook approach is head-on. Which presupposes
the unit firing the ESSM is itself the target. If it's
anyone else, the chances of a successful intercept are
reduced, and the higher the crossing rate, the less
the probability, although frankly it would be zero from
the get-go against something so fast. So ESSM cannot
protect another unit unless it is right alongside the
firing unit, and bunching up like that would be inadvisable
for any number of reasons.
However, soft-kill measures enjoy a considerable
advantage over hard-kill, although most of the money
goes to hard-kill because it's so much more glamorous.
In most navies. Not in Russia, though, where ESM, ECM
and decoys are among the most effective and best-tested
in the world. Such systems are made specifically for
active homers, although jammers are effective against
surveillance and acquisition radars as well.
Indeed, a wall of shrapnel from some sort of
"curtain" defense system would go a long way to
shredding the incoming missile. The speed on the
incoming missile makes the shredding easier.
In that the US likely does not have a missile that
is in the same league as the Kinzhal, I wonder what
they used as a target for their testing? Or, its just
a sop to make us Americans feel exceptional?
The US does not have any hypersonic missiles.
It would not have any dummy target that would have
the characteristics of the Kinzhal. Much like all
of its vaunted ABM system tests were against purely
ballistic targets.
They probably ran the numbers in a simulator,
and said sure, we could stop it. They fly missiles
as targets all the time, missiles they have either
captured or bought through third parties. They just
fasten it to the rails on the bottom of a fighter,
turn on the seeker head, and use the plane to simulate
a missile. The plane doesn't fly as fast, of course,
but that is an artificiality that is built into
the test. They simply assume it was flying at the
correct speed, and assess whether you got your chaff
into the air in time to stop the real thing, or
whether your jammer successfully decoyed the seeker.
They can play that one out regardless how fast the
'missile' is going – if the head loses lock, it
probably would miss. In that scenario, the 'missile'
flying slower than real time actually works to its
advantage; the real thing would have less time to
reacquire you, if it has that capability, because
its run to the target is a lot shorter.
"A total of 830 gang leaders, more than 86,000 militants, including
4,500 immigrants from the Russian Federation and the CIS countries,
were eliminated,"
Excellent job! Especially in the case of the vermin from the
ex-USSR.
That seems a little arbitrary, considering that British rug-dealer
or whatever he is from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
keeps saying a little over 10,000 civilians were killed. Is
it possible Russian strikes were so accurate that more than
8 times as many militants were killed as civilians, even with
Uncle Sam helping?
Mind you, I don't think anyone really knows with very much
certainty, because some outfit calling itself the Syrian Center
for Policy Research claims there were over 470,000 killed in
Syria.
I think that there was sufficient sampling by the SAA
and Russian special forces of the various attack locations
to make these numbers credible. Russia was using precision
guided bombing so it had to identify viable targets. Satellites
are not enough. Drones can get a good sense of the militant
count if they are given enough time.
I guess the could put error bars on these numbers. But
the average citizen wouldn't know what to make of them.
Expect more White Helmet jihadi theater. Idlib is basically the
last terrorist enclave of note left in Syria. Assad apparently is
a masochist since he will stage some small and totally pointless
chemical weapons attack to give the US and its minions all sorts
of pretexts to do more harm than this chemical weapons "win" could
ever produce. The SAA now does not have to be spread thin to deal
with a thousands of kilometers long frontline so the Idlib operation
should be a mop up and not some epic battle.
It appears that HRW and other western war enabling organizations
have been running around claiming that Syria uses cluster bombs.
Yeah, if that was the case there would be vast amounts of evidence.
Like there was in Serbia in 1999 after NATzO used cluster munitions.
"The al-Majalah camp attack also referred to as the
al-Majalah massacre[1] occurred on December 17, 2009
when the United States military launched Tomahawk cruise
missiles from a ship off the Yemeni coast on a Bedouin
camp in the southern village of al-Majalah in Yemen,
killing 14 alleged Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
fighters and 41 civilians,[2][3][4][5][6] including
14 women and 21 children."
Who cares about 41 faceless innocent civilians
when crooks like Litvinenko and Skripal are made
into some sort of heavenly martyrs. Apparently,
it is OK for Mossad to off opponents of Israel,
but if Russia HYPOTHETICALLY does it, then it is
the crime of the millennium. The west is a sick
joke.
I think that train has sailed. No more embarrassingly feeble
cruise missile attacks and no-fly zones are a distant memory.
The main efforts may be focused on sabotaging reconstruction
and unleashing saturation propaganda attacks as cover during
the retreat from Syria.
Maybe, but the American hawks have not just gone to sleep,
and are always trying out a new 'red line' to see if it
will win public support. You're right that they're mostly
just going through the motions, but I get the feeling that
if they ever came up with the right message – another Iraqis-ripping-babies-out-of-incubators
story – that would resonate with the public, they'd be pretty
glad to get back in there, and it wouldn't take them long
because they haven't actually left yet. They're just marking
time and hoping for a break.
They can and will likely try an over-the-top propaganda
hit piece but a majority of Americans have drama-fatigue.
We are saturated with BS news and no longer care.
The first batch of 100 Armata T-14 tanks have been ordered. Extensive
testing of these tanks will be initiated in 2019. Given all the
testing that has been done already, this is nothing like the case
with ships. This is some sort of formality likely focusing on the
unit failure rate out in the field.
That is a significant number. So much for the theory that
the tank was to be put on ice. I suppose that perhaps 1,000
would be needed to have a strategic impact but 100 is a pretty
good start. The other related systems (the self-propelled artillery,
armored personnel carrier, etc.) may be of equal significance.
I wonder how many of those will be ordered. The self-propelled
artillery sytem in particular seemed to be a breakthrough in
capability.
The Ukrainian army will be the strongest in Europe, said the
President of the Ukraine Petro Poroshenko at a veterans' forum in
Kiev.
According to him, nobody can prevent the Ukraine from joining
NATO, and the army will be so strong, because the Ukrainians are
"fighting for peace".
"We have been completely re-engineering the entire security sector,
including the armed forces, fully to NATO standards. And the main
message that I have brought back from the NATO summit : the doors
of NATO are open for the Ukraine, no matter what Russia says. And
the key message for Russia is: you cannot stop the Euro-Atlantic
integration of our country", Poroshenko is quoted as having said
on the August 22 edition of "NewsOne".
The Ukrainian President noted that the country has to do a
lot of work to do in order to achieve such objectives .
Porky, you fat twat! Russia need say nothing whenever you open
your filthy snout!
When will these retarded fucks ever shut up. Even his vaunted
160,000 strong "reservist" army is certain to be a joke. It
will be a generation before Ukraine can get its army shit together.
That is assuming its economy does not implode. The chances of
economic failure are increasing by the hour.
You beat me to the punch, P.O.! Most of the troops look
like the same, and the Porky figure is clearly a photoshopped
cut-out. The real Porky would not be so stupid as to stand
in front of all those guns.
In that picture you can see about 160 people. How do we know
that's not all of them, just pulled in tight for the shot?
Porky has to keep broadcasting that we're-gonna-be-in-NATO
signal to reassure the Ukrainian public that he's not getting
paid for doing nothing. I am pretty sure the encouragement he
hears for Ukraine to be in NATO is all in his imagination, or
he's just making it up. Ukraine would be an enormous liability,
and I am sure Europe is only too conscious that the United States
would be the most likely to provoke an Article-5 situation using
Ukraine, but it would be Europe who would have to fight the
war.
McCain is walking talking proof that sociopaths are fast-tracked
for success. There never was a man, in my opinion, in US politics
that was more exploitative, coldly calculating and utterly ruthless
than that bag of shit.
But, Mark said it much better with style, slashing wit and evidence.
The Russian Ministry of Defence has published previously classified
documents about the Battle of Kursk on the eve of the 75th anniversary
of that huge Soviet victory over the invading Nazi forces in August
1943.
Of course, the Germans suffered a defeat at Kursk because of
the horrendous cold that is common in Western Russia during the
summer months, not to mention the imported from the USA cans of
Spam that the Red Army infantry chucked between the German armour
track idler wheels so that the tracks would jam.
Maybe the Welsh are visiting Crimea to show their support
for Ukraine! And to blow their symphonic brass instruments of
hope to encourage the prisoners there to pluck up their courage,
against the day they will at last be free.
I would just tell them that, anyway. What could be the answer
to that? Should I show my support for Kiev by staying away from
it?
Verkhovna Rada Deputy Oleg Barna of the "Blok Petro Poroshenko"
has said live on air on the Ukrainian TV channel NewsOne that the
Ukraine armed forces parade in honour of Independence Day "could
give rise to an earthquake in the Kremlin".
We have something to boast about. The parade is a measure
of the patriotism of all citizens who want to see the fighting efficiency
of our army I think that our military march and the rumble of
our armoured vehicles should cause an earthquake in the Kremlin.
Украинские спецслужбы, украинцы должны уделить внимание, возможно
через наших союзников на Кавказе, уничтожению Крымского моста.
-- Игорь Мосийчук
Perhaps with the help of our allies in the Caucusus, the
Ukraine intelligence services and Ukrainians should focus their
attention on the destruction of the Crimea Bridge
-- Ihor Mosiychuk [Ukrainian Supreme Rada Deputy]
I thought they wanted Russia to present it to them as a gift?
As an expression of good will?
If Ukraine wants a massive war so badly, then perhaps that
is what is in the cards. But if there is a third World War,
Ukraine will be utterly destroyed, razed to its foundations.
Its self-satisfied fat-cat leaders do not appear to grasp this,
because life is actually pretty good for them the way it is.
If there is no war, and things go on as they are, eventually
there will be another revolution in Ukraine and the fat oligarch
who runs it will flee for his life. If past performance is any
standard of measure, then the Ukrainians will elect another
rich oligarch, and settle down to hope that things will get
better.
The Yukies decided instead to follow Tom Rogan's recommendation
to destroy the bridge. After all, if the opinion comes from
an American, then it must be the right opinion and the best
option.
The best that Banderastan can do is engage in terrorism.
They can send car bombs or plant IEDs on the road and create
havoc. If they try a military solution, their military will
be heavily degraded.
If 'heavily degraded' means 'run through a meat grinder
and then rolled flat', then yes. The Ukrainian Army
is no match for the Russian Army, and could not even
slow it down, never mind stop it.
Jesus would not stay very long on Twitter. People would
take his tweets all too literally and he would get tired
of having to explain for the umpteenth time that he didn't
believe that a camel really could walk through the eye of
a needle.
Diaspora
, an open alternative to Facebook, has already
been around for quite a few years but as you can imagine is not
so slick. How long until other alternatives start vying for attention
(advertizing)?
FireEye is the same outfit that claimed to have busted a
ring of Russian hackers trying to gain access to American military
secrets. They could tell because the 'cyberweapon' was built
on Russian-language machines, and during working hours in Moscow.
As if Russians smart enough to build an electronic weapon that
evades detection and spreads itself to firewalled machines kept
off the internet would be stupid enough to code in Russian and
leave clues like that which pointed back straight at them. These
days nothing says 'CIA' like use of the Russian language in
contested online communication.
It's curious that we have two emerging narratives, one factual
and one offered as fact. The factual one; the USA has been involved
for decades in dominating the internet, and for generations
in spreading American influence around the world by all available
means, frequently disguised and often under the control if its
intelligence agencies. No country in the world places as high
a priority as the United States on maintaining American control
over the internet and everything that happens on it; the biggest
browsers and the giants of social media are all American. Now
the second narrative – suddenly every country which is declared
an enemy of 'American values' is attacking America with sophisticated
social-media and hacking attacks online. Every time an American
security firm 'busts' a new effort, the evidence is always stupidly
obvious, like "Americans should not vote for the Jezebel Hillary
Clinton; if you know what is good for you, you will vote for
Trump, insh' Allah".
Suddenly Iran is launching sophisticated cyber-attacks against
the USA, although they have never done it before and Iran has
only a tiny presence on the internet. Just at the moment when
Washington is looking for a reason to impose crippling sanctions
upon them and institute regime change. A little convenient,
isn't it?
Someone once said or wrote: "The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there".
I remember how where the Chuckle Brothers came from was
just like my old neck of the woods, but now, in both these
places, heavy industry has come and gone.
It was L.P. Hartley whom I quoted above: just looked
it up.
Scores of asylum seekers who entered Russia with World Cup
fan identity documents are seeking legal help in Moscow, in an attempt
to escape war, political repression and homophobia, a refugee assistance
group has said.
Russia introduced visa-free travel for holders of Fan IDs
during the football tournament this summer, later extending the
measure until the end of 2018 on President Vladimir Putin's orders.
During the tournament, dozens of Fan ID holders reportedly tried
to enter Europe illegally using Fan IDs.
It's always tempting to think that pieces which resonate mean
that one's suspicions have some merit, but, hey, give it up for
Gilbert Doctorow's conclusions
"The family of David Dungay Jr, a 26-year-old Aboriginal killed
at Sydney's Long Bay jail in 2015, have stepped-up their campaign
for justice after footage was played at the New South Wales Coroner's
Court last month revealing the violent assault that led to his tragic
death.
The video was played in the course of an ongoing coronial inquest
into Dungay's killing. It showed that in the moments before he died
five immediate action team (IAT) prison officers stormed Dungay's
cell, restraining him and smothering him face-down on a bed. Dungay
could be heard crying out 12 times that he "couldn't breathe." (SOUND
FAMILIAR??)
The guards attacked Dungay because he allegedly refused to stop
eating biscuits. After being smothered Dungay was hauled into another
cell. Multiple officers once again forced him face-down on the bed
to prevent him from struggling.
Dungay was administered an injection of midazolam, a powerful
sedative that also produces anterograde amnesia. A few minutes later
he had stopped breathing. The officers were still holding him down."
Human6 • 11 hours ago
Much as I despise him, Orwell did make a valuable observation about
euphemisms and the English language:
****"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the
defence of the indefensible. ***
Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian
purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan,
can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal
for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed
aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist
largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
Spot on!!!!
Oh .and Stooges
"You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not pout, I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He sees you when you're sleepin'
He knows when you're a wake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake"
"Le principal résultat de la présente vague d'accusations de
harcčlement sexuel est l'érosion des droits démocratiques élémentaires
aux États-Unis, incluant la présomption d'innocence et l'équité
procédurale, l'obligation légale de la poursuite de faire la preuve
de la culpabilité de l'accusé hors de tout doute raisonnable. Ces
"gauchistes" qui célčbrent cet assaut jouent un jeu trčs dangereux
et réactionnaire. Comme Léon Trotsky l'a déjŕ dit: "La théorie,
aussi bien que l'expérience historique, témoigne du fait que toute
restriction démocratique dans la société bourgeoise est éventuellement
dirigée contre le prolétariat, de la męme maničre que les taxes
tombent éventuellement sur les épaules du prolétariat." "
Yup!!!
However when contemplating the growth of the ME Too movement,
it's interesting to note the commensurate near deification of vapid
sluts and whores by the MSM whereby manufactured 'celebrity' women-aka
Divas-market the wholesale debasement and sexualization of women
as cnts for sale ..
Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public
face – the MSM:
– stopping the deplorable rebellion
– cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
– reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery
and international leadership role
– bitch slapping China
The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment
of a feudal world comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions
of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally castrated peasants to serve
as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.
My impression is that around the year 2000 there was supposed
to a new world order. Communism was sabotaged and brought down.
That left the imperialist capitalists in charge, like they were
before 1917. Globalism is a dirty word, since it means global
domination by the USA and its NATzO minions and the countries
that depend on the US empire. This would include, or should
include China and the vanquished Russia (ex-USSR). We saw NATzO
supplant the UN as the world police.
Instead we have Russia in a truly phoenix resurgence into
superpower status. Don't let the clowns try to argue that Russia's
economy is small. It is bigger than Germany's regardless of
the PPP correction, which fails to properly weight the whole
economy since it is fixated on consumer goods and makes a load
of implicit assumptions about which sectors are the biggest.
Militarily, Russia is a match for the USA. Difference in the
number of aircraft carriers mean bupkis. The Syria campaign
shows that the US cannot do anything to stop Russia from severely
undermining its agenda. We saw this 2013 when Russia stopped
the US planned Libya and Serbia style attack on Syria. This
was achieved through deployment of a serious number of Russian
missile cruisers and other navy assets to the Mediterranean.
The US went foaming mad and pulled its Ukraine card. (I am not
sure about the planned timeline for the coup, but I suspect
that a more "democratic" approach to regime change was probably
more desired, this would have frustrated the return of Crimea).
Since 2013, the US and its minions have lost the initiative.
All their big regime change plans are unraveling and they keep
losing the ball. Crimea was a serious loss for these clowns.
The Khuyiv regime is no prize and its day are numbered since
it is watching over an economic collapse. Now they have lost
Syria and Russia will establish a moderate Islamic belt from
Lebanon to Iran to keep the Wahabbi nutjobs at bay. There were
big plans in Washington for Central Asia to be taken over by
Saudi managed jihadis. Russia would be stuck in a religious
war quagmire on its doorstep. But that evil Putin is f*cking
up those plans on a epic scale.
The US deep excrement state is feeling the loss of its promised
dominion of the planet. There was never supposed to be any opposition
after 1991. The 21st century was supposed to be the American
century. But instead we have an economic pole shift to Asia.
The shrinkage of NATzO in the global GDP is not stopping but
accelerating. By 2050, the precious west will be less than 20%
of the world economy. It will cease being an economic Mecca
and all the developing country elites will orient themselves
to the new economic power locus. This is a nightmare for western
capitalist imperialists.
Yes, that seems the case. The strategy to promote moderate
Islam is a brilliant and humane countermove to the Western
games of manipulation of the unfortunate deranged.
For me, I would say that the '
few days of bombing
Serbia
' in 1999 ripped any last vestiges of belief
that the West was
here to help
mega violently
(deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy) away from
everyone. Of course plenty happened in the years running
up to that event The other is when China joined the
WTO on 11/12/2001 and hit the ground running – they
were expected to behave meekly and ask the great white
men for their advice and follow it.
Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM
as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support
him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites
and social engineering.
Anyone find any reference to "Russian trolls" in it, apart from
this: "
It found many tweets that were posted by the same bots
thought to have been used to influence the 2016 election, as well
as marketing and malware bots
"?
I see: "thought to have been used", writes the "journalist".
And on that supposition the Independent "journalist" rests his
case.
It turns out that many anti-vaccine tweets come from accounts
whose provenance is unclear
," said David Broniatowski,
an assistant professor in GW's School of Engineering and Applied
Science.
"These
might be
bots, human users or
'cyborgs' – hacked accounts that are
sometimes
taken over by bots. Although it's
impossible to know
exactly
how many tweets were generated by bots and
trolls, our findings
suggest
that
a
significant portion
of the online discourse about vaccines
may be
generated by malicious actors with a
range of hidden agendas."
Equivocation central – it's amazing what can pass as a 'study'
these days. What is even more incredible is that we have arrived
at a point in our history when the appearance of debate on a
point is suspicious, and inspires 'researchers' to 'study' the
problem to see who is behind it rather than focusing on why
the point generated debate in the first place. We have arrived
at a point where it is actually unpatriotic to disagree with
the official narrative.
Many more Americans believe vaccines are safe than the astroturfed
'debate' suggests, found the study. Google says bullshit. A
recent Zogby poll of a claimed representative sample group found
only 32% of respondents said they were 'very confident' vaccines
were safe. The same or a similar question was posed 10 years
ago, and the proportion who said they were 'not too confident
has risen 3% since then, while those who said they were 'not
at all confident' in the safety of vaccines went up by 2%. People
are not getting more confident, they're getting less confident.
There; that's my study – where's my research grant?
Once again, as soon as the mainstream media finds an argument,
it is quick to blame it on unidentified 'Russian trolls', rather
than addressing the problem. The state narrative is the law.
And the pace is quickening.
No. Just no. The time for this thing to take off, reach altitude
and then fire off its small missile variants is much longer
than any ground based LEO interceptor. The only value of this
system is that it uses cheaper rockets. But cruising at well
under 22 km (U-2 and M-55 top altitude) this flying launch point
is still within the deep of the Earth's geopotential well. Its
speed is also nothing of interest so that the initial velocity
of the rockets it carries are not big enough to matter. May
as well just launch from the ground.
This thing can only loft small sized satellites into orbit.
An example of such a satellite is Scisat-I which is still in
orbit gathering science data.
I smell ulterior motives for this platform. Aside from the
pork barrel aspect, it is a dual use weapons system. It is probably
designed to fly near the border of the "enemy" and carry long
range supersonic missiles and cruise missiles.
As a launcher of satellite interceptor, it might have
some value given its ability to launch closer to the satellite's
ground track (if that is a factor). On the other hand it
or its facilities can be taken out with a single cruise
missile. Russia's mobile anti-satellite interceptors would
seem to be much more survivable.
I suppose the idea is that a number of rockets can be
prepped and then launched at perhaps at a rate of 3-4 per
day – perhaps to replenish destroyed satellites as suggested
by the article. But such activities would suggest a general
war and we are back to its vulnerability to a modest attack.
The idea of the plane serving as a cruise missile platform
is interesting but the plane has a fairly short range and
probably is a maintenance nightmare. Wait, that makes it
perfect fit for most defense programs.
The people yelling loudest about myths can be the biggest myth
spreaders out there.
In order to make vaccines useful, they are mixed with adjuvants
which are primarily aluminum based. This creates inflammation at
the location the vaccine is administered with a needle. The macrophages
then consume the pieces of no-active virus or bacteria and the immune
system learns to make antibodies that for that strain. During future
infections the response time is vastly shorter and any mutation
is more likely to not take too long to respond to before effective
antibodies are produced.
The problem with the above is that inducing inflammation involving
aluminum and other molecules in the vaccine concoction can trigger
an auto-immune syndrome in some fraction of a percentage of the
population. Their immune systems are too hyperactive and not particularly
precise in identifying actual foreign molecules instead of similar
ones in the body. A variation on this theme is that Type I diabetics
lose their beta cells due to an auto-immune response triggered by
milk product intake.
The kooks would have everyone not use vaccines. That is not the
solution. But it is a fact that no procedure exists to tag people
with a predisposition to auto-immune reactions and have them dealt
with in a safer way. The real myth is that vaccines are universally
safe. And I have not even gotten into the whole issue of the use
of ethyl-mercury as a vaccine preservative. Both ethyl- and methyl-mercury
are potent neurotoxins.
Released in early 2018, the study's findings found methamphetamine
usage highest in Cyprus, eastern Germany, Finland and Norway. Cocaine,
on the other hand, was both on the rise and most concentrated in
cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK.
Surprising almost no one, wastewater epidemiologists confirmed
"cocaine and psychedelic MDMA (ecstasy) levels rose sharply at weekends
in most cities, while amphetamine use appeared to be more evenly
distributed throughout the week."
The above data is lacking quantification so not as interesting
as it could have been.
Gazprom leads the world in capital expenditure (capex) on global
energy projects, by a wide, wide margin – $160 Billion to be spent
on 84 projects worldwide, including Nord Stream II and Turkish Stream.
That's nearly double the spending of its next-closest competitor,
Sinopec, at $87 Billion. Royal Dutch Shell is third, and Exxon a
distant fourth.
If you add Rosneft, that's another $50 Billion in capex for Russia.
Odd behaviour for an isolated country whose economy is in tatters.
One whose government debt is 12.6 % of GDP and declining.
Speaking of government debt, how's that parameter looking for
The Exceptional Nation? Whoa: that's exceptional. Not even much
point in expressing it as a percentage of GDP, I guess.
Just to drive the point home for any who might not have gotten
it, Russia – friendless, alone against the world, and reeling from
the bite of American sanctions – is outspending the USA nearly three
to one on global energy investments, although its debt is a tiny
fraction of America's out-of-control spending on other important
things, like its bloated defense budget.
Oh, that's right – Vladimir Putin is a tyrant and a dictator,
squeezing the country dry in neverending pursuit of self-enrichment.
I almost forgot.
Very well written Mark! It would seem I enjoy your writing most
when you are on a sass and sarcasm roll, of which this particular
piece is a great example. Bravo!
Incidentally this particular issue is something that I had completely
missed. Though it does seem to be part of the recent purge of opposition
voices in social media. A development that I fear may be just starting.
Thanks, Murdock! And I sort of missed it as well, although
I think we cannot be blamed as it seems to have gone into overnight
overdrive based on a silent admission to itself by the west
that it is not winning the propaganda war by simply shouting
"Russians!!!" every time something goes wrong for it. Like many
a fool before, it has gone to the well too many times, and the
audience for that sort of guff is dwindling. So the new game
is restrict what the people read and hear.
According to Richard Sambrook, who was the BBC's director of news from 2001, trouble
between the BBC and New Labour brewed when Britain intervened in Kosovo in 1999: Alastair
Campbell, then Blair's press secretary, accused the media of being too much in thrall to
Slobodan Milosevic's "lie machine". After 9/11, the stakes became much, much higher .
The crux came at 6.07am on 29 May 2003, when Andrew Gilligan reported on the Today
programme that, according to a source, the joint intelligence committee report on Saddam
Hussein's chemical and biological weapons capability had been "sexed up" by the government
with a claim that such weapons could be activated within 45 minutes of an order. That there
had been any deception was fiercely denied by the government and it was amid the ensuing
maelstrom that the story's source, Dr David Kelly, took his own life. Lord Hutton's
controversial and contested report into the death of the Ministry of Defence weapons expert
was deeply critical of the BBC and precipitated the resignation of both the director general,
Dyke, and the chairman, Gavyn Davies. That simultaneous toppling of the twin titans of the
BBC was an unprecedentedly traumatic event in the history of the corporation. It was made all
the more bitter by the fact that the struggle was fratricidal: Dyke's appointment as DG had
been controversial because he had been a donor to New Labour .
Sambrook continued: "I suppose in a sense what I'm saying is that Kelly was a kind of
mini-Edward Snowden story. He was saying that actually this intelligence has been completely
misused, and many people inside the tent knew it and were uncomfortable about it
"If Edward Snowden had contacted Panorama or Newsnight could they have done what the
Guardian did? No. No, they couldn't," he said.
"They might have been able to do a piece at a meta level, a headline level, but they could
not have done what the Guardian did with Snowden. I find it uncomfortable to say that, but
it's the truth. So what does that tell you about the BBC? It tells you that in the end there
is a limit to its independence – some would call that public accountability. It is a
wonderful news organisation. It does fantastic journalism every day. But there is a limit to
it. And I think in the end that was part of a miscalculation in the Kelly story. We thought
we were genuinely independent. And we weren't."
But how far is the BBC willing to take its journalism up against the establishment –
and the government, which in the end seals the BBC's fate? Other journalists I spoke to
within the BBC were much less sanguine. "The BBC is at its highest levels concerned with not
offending the establishment, not making enemies in important places. Its core purpose –
independent and impartial journalism – clashes with its survival instincts, and that
goes back to the beginning," said one senior journalist.
'Senior people at the BBC see themselves part of the establishment'
Another took an even bleaker view. "Newsgathering – covering the stuff that is
happening in the world – we do that brilliantly. The BBC newsgathering operation is
genuinely a wonder to perceive. But digging out original stories? No, sorry. Nor has it ever
done. When push comes to shove, senior people at the BBC consider themselves part of the
establishment."..
The employee called such managers, as well the departments in charge of editorial policy
and compliance, "journalism deterrent squads" who were strangling the efforts of colleagues
"like Japanese knotweed". Journalists are afraid of not being backed up by the BBC, added the
employee, when the pressure is on – and compared the corporation's approach with the
much more bullish, confident and "cheeky, risk-taking" stance of Channel 4 News. "The BBC
always buckles, always folds. You feel that as a journalist, they will abandon you; if you
take a risky story to them it's as if you are actively trying to get them into trouble. There
is an institutionalised anxiety and mistrust."
Peston said: "There is a risk-averse culture that means when the BBC wants people who can
break stories it has to look to recruit from outside. When the BBC is training young
journalists, it starts by telling them about the regulatory restraints: it starts with the
rules and says: 'Don't you dare break them'."
####
Plenty more at the link.
The simple fact is that s/he who holds the purse strings, holds the power –
regardless of how often or how rarely it is used. It casts a long shadow. And that's even
before you look at the size and scale of such organizations. Self-censorship? Certainly.
Admitting it publicly? Never.
There was no danger that I would mistake the BBC for an impartial and unbiased
investigative news source. However, Channel 4 with its 'cheeky, risk-taking stance' is no
better, as 'cheeky risk-taking' in British journalism still means backing establishment
positions when it comes to foreign policy. They might contribute to the odd cabinet
minister's sacking, but I could give a toss about Britain's internal politics, and it is only
its foreign-policy machinations I care about . And those are pretty much unvarying –
Uncle Sam, boffo. Putin, evil.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
For anyone still interested in the Skripal poisoning incident, Rob Slane at The Blogmire has
a new article where he draws attention to this paragraph lifted from The Daily Telegraph:
"Dr Stephen Jukes, intensive care consultant at Salisbury District Hospital, where the
Skripals were treated (and where Rowley and Sturgess were taken), has described trying 'all
our therapies' to keep Sergei and Yulia alive. Due to an astonishing coincidence, two doctors
on duty had just returned from a course at Porton Down, Britain's world-leading equivalent to
Shikhany, when the pair were brought in. Recognising what looked like symptoms of nerve-agent
poisoning, they made sure to include diazepam and atropine in their battery of treatments --
the drugs compensate for some of the effects of acetylcholinesterase blockage -- and plunged
the Skripals into an artificial coma to prevent brain damage."
https://www.theblogmire.com/are-any-mps-prepared-to-ask-the-prime-minister-why-she-appears-to-have-made-a-deeply-misleading-statement-on-26th-march/
Astonishing coincidence, that the two doctors were fresh from a training course at Porton
Down? Maybe not.
Elsewhere Slane states that the Skripals, and Julia especially, made rapid recoveries
after coming out of their induced comas, and that by the time Theresa May made her statement
in Parliament, she may have been aware (or was deliberately left uninformed) that Julia at
least was improving and nowhere remotely near pushing up daisies.
This story is BS like the rest of this hoax. Neurotoxins are not 100% treatable. There is
nerve damage and any military grade toxin such as VX would leave vast amounts of it,
regardless of intervention. So the recovery of the Julia proves she was never exposed to a
neurotoxin.
The average media consumer has never done any research on the subject of various subjects
that are relevant. They think of treatments in cartoon fashion. Take this magic pill and you
are fully cured. No long lasting effects, no lack of cures, etc. A common trope in TV and
movies is the magical antibody. You have a horde of zombies (yet more deep insight into
disease) and some vaccine is going to cure their disorder. Complete and utter rubbish.
An example to show what a failure the common perceptions are about disease is Necrotizing
Fasciitis. It is not the bacteria (strep B type) that consume the "flesh". It is a runaway
cytokine inflammation induced necrosis of cells on a massive scale. Basically it is a genetic
disorder even if bacteria trigger the disease. So how the metabolism responds to a neurotoxin
should be considered. In the case of military nerve agents, the design of the toxin is to
result in rapid death. This prevents various secondary, metabolism-associated pathologies
from manifesting themselves. But in the case of the Skripals, which are pure fiction, we
would have all of these secondary pathologies manifesting themselves.
"Moreover, the effects of nerve agents are very long lasting and cumulative (increased by
successive exposures), and survivors of nerve agent poisoning usually suffer chronic
neurological damage that can lead to continuing psychiatric effects [109]."
MAGNITSKIY MOVIE. An authorised
version is available on Vimeo here. I urge you to watch it: not only
does it complete destroy Browder's case, it is an interesting detective process as the
film-maker gradually perceives the inconsistencies and manipulations. Browder's story has been
extremely important at setting up the anti-Russia dancing mania : if it's a lie, then what?
'Bill Browder Should Be in Jail' Says Philip Giraldi, Widely Respected Pundit and Retired
CIA Officer The Browder story keeps getting more and more airplay, and it is not
complimentary to him. Patrick Fleming 10 min ago | 29
13 Giraldi, one of
the most popular writers on the conservative Unz.com , is one of the superstars of the alt-media landscape. He has
been outspoken about the pernicious effects of Israel and wealthy pro-Israeli American Jews on
American politics. You can see many of his articles on RI here .
This was from a radio interview with Lee Stranahan, formerly of Breitbart, now with Sputnik,
the Russian state-owned news agency.
You can listen to the whole thing here. Key quotes below:
"He's basically been the one who appears on the networks, appears before Congress," "
"He is someone that they've [US officials] decided has to be the spokesperson in terms of
what's going on in Russia, and yet he has a hidden agenda as a potential criminal."
"I think the story is growing; I'm seeing more and more references to Browder in a
negative way."
"The problem is that we have to get this at a level where Browder is doing his damage, and
that's in the mainstream media, places like The New York Times, and also to have some people
in Congress begin to speak up and say, 'Hey, what about the Magnitsky Act and everything that
we did to provoke a crisis with Russia based on what Browder was telling us?'".
"Once you understand that, you realize that Browder, if anything, should be in jail."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
Apologies if the above was posted before. But that is nice smackdown to the morons running the UK and their inane propaganda
about how the World Cup was like the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
No high ranking UK officials attended the World Cup as you know. But they had quite the entourage to the 1936 Olympics. Sick,
hypocrite f*cks.
USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.
"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions
in response to the deadly attack.
The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it
used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that
the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation
of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own
nationals."
Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a
military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."
What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all
this pandering to western partners.
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not
even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial
body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to
Russia.
At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self
defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that
it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked
in the head.
It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic
relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly
all exports and imports.
So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on
Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its
aircraft manufacturing?
This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests
fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial
law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly
frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate
nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.
It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to
attack back.
Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.
Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this
pathway to outright confrontation
The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have
Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack.
In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.
Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and
starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across
his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with
an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and
Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like
that.
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular
pizza. I'd pay to see that.
Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia
in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof
that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that
because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement.
Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in
the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled
and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to
the CWC? That Russia?
I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence
as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority
under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty
unambiguous terminology there.
This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just
depressing.
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical
hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United
States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to
go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that
it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation
deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to
verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less
and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.
In a rare interview, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talks about his
illustrious career and how he believes the official versions of some the biggest news stories
of our time just don't add up
Here's quite a good collection of references and commentary on the Skripal 'poisoning'. Every
time I read over one of these summaries – and I by no means read this one over in
detail, just skimmed it – some new incongruity jumps out that sailed right past me on
the initial run-through. In this instance, Nick Bailey. The Skripals were supposedly poisoned
by Novichok daubed on the doorknob of their front door, and Bailey was supposedly affected by
the same vector. Yet the Skripals lived it up for about four hours before they showed any
symptoms, while Bailey was affected almost immediately.
Curious thing also is that police officers were initially posted outside the front door
– there were quite a few photos of the two women police officers (one chubby, the other
not so chubby) standing near the driveway – for some time without being affected by any
fumes, until the doorknob story became prominent.
One of the more sinister aspects of the "poisoning" is that all major evidence – the
Zizzi restaurant table, the park bench, the pet animals that starved – has been or is
being destroyed by the British authorities. Even Dawn Sturgess was cremated without anything
in the press about whether her body had been autopsied. If someone blames somebody else for a
murder or some other serious crime, and then covers up or gets rid of important evidence,
what does such behaviour suggest?
Too true, blue. Although the police officers might have stood there until the clap of doom
and not been affected if the agent was present as a gel, and slathered on the doorknob. But
that story always sounded like a crock, because both of them likely would not have touched
the doorknob on the way out, probably only one of them, and the supposed Russian assassins
would not have known if it might have been Yulia. Good assassination plots, as we have been
told the Russians have practiced for decades, ensure that the target is taken out. They're
not particularly squeamish about collateral damage, but in this instance only Yulia might
have succumbed. But assuming it was a gel and it was on the doorknob, much of it might be
assumed to have been removed by the target on the way out, and still Bailey was overcome in
less than half the time of the Skripals, both of whom appear to have been simultaneously
afflicted around four hours after leaving the house.
It's kind of comical, the stubborn and progressive destruction of evidence by the British
authorities, the buying of Skripal's and Bailey's houses at taxpayers' expense, and so on
– it's as if after a brief blink of bewilderment that the official narrative is not
being accepted at face value, the British government is trying to get a do-over.
My God, what has Salisbury done to the Dark Lord? When will his fearful shadow be lifted from
this unhappy city? There has been an explosion in a 'military factory' (not sure what that
means) in Salisbury which has killed at least one person. The MSM has not yet announced the
Russian connection but Luke Harding/The Guardian/The Independent/the Foreign Office/the
entire US State Department/ are, no doubt, manufacturing one as we speak.
Maybe the Russian agents who poisoned the Skripals by smearing a non-lethal fatal nerve
agent on a door handle after pumping it through a car ventilation system after sneaking it
into Yulia's luggage and who then high-tailed it back to Moscow but not before decanting some
of it into a gift-wrapped bottle which they left in a local park where it could be recovered
in a pristine state after four months and used to poison a couple of dumpster-foragers, made
a hitherto unknown deviation from the Kremlin's master plan and hid the remaining nerve agent
in a factory along with a time-controlled detonator so all evidence of their evil doing was
destroyed.
Now the authorities will be telling people that Novichok is highly inflammable and children
should not be allowed to play with Novichok and matches or cigarette lighters.
The Russians engineered it to be that way – a fatal nerve agent that seldom kills,
persistent for months if wrapped in cellophane, explosive and flammable, eats dreams and
makes you lose your job.
In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice – purportedly a true story about his
experience in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't
add up and demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious
strength of that story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act in 2012 which needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia.
Where he failed in courts of law, however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia
and of Vladimir Putin has been successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As
humanity finds itself on the precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of
mutual understanding and constructive engagement, not demonization.
" and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered "
What an amazing consistency in supporting the Browder/Steele line "Putin did it." Which is
understandable, considering the efforts and investment made into the MSM memes. You made a
very strong impression that the presstituting MSM is your main source of information.
Here are some excerpts from the honest sources.
"Poisoned Russian spy was close to Christopher Steele consultant:"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/poisoned-russian-spy-close-steele-consultant-report-article-1.3862516
"Jonathan Winer was not only a point man for the Steele "dossier" at the State Department in
2016 (and Steele dossiers of yore), he was also a father of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Yes,
longtime Senate staffer Winer is the "old friend" Browder credits with envisioning the
legislative strategy that culminated in passage of the law. (More recently, Winer is serving
as Browder's bulldog-lawyer -- story here.)
"Cardin knew there were problems with Browder's story about Magnitsky's death and yet brought
him into Congress to testify to secure the vote. That's suborning perjury:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions
"Litvinenko's circle also included Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Goldfarb, Vyacheslav
Zharko, and Akhmed Zakayev, most of whom have received asylum in the U.K. In the 1990s, Boris
Berezovsky worked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and George Soros' International Science
Foundation which was headed by Alexander Goldfarb for almost ten years. He was also involved
in money laundering millions of dollars through the Bank of New York and the Republic
Bank of New York which was owned by Bill Browder's now deceased partner, Edmond
Safra:" https://jimmysllama.com/2018/05/07/11191/
– Is not interesting, how so many Browder's connections met an untimely death yet
Browder the Scoundrel is well supported and protected by the "deciders." -- See the fate of a
DOCUMENTARY about Browder, Magnitsky, and a bloody trail of the dead former employees of
Browder whom he used for his very profitable if criminal enterprise.
Alexander Perepelichny" was the key witness who could potentially destroy the scam with
highest political stakes on Magnitsky dossier. As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and
"I do not know" on any substantial inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very
interested in hearing Perepelichny. This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week
before the bill passed the US House: on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead
outside his mansion in London."
Moss also told the Guardian that Manigault Newman's use of a recording device presented
counterintelligence risks. "All it takes is one foreign agency hacking [the recording device],
and setting it to passive record mode," said Moss. The result would mean all conversations, not
just those Manigault Newman chose to record, would be "accessible to foreign entities".
This concern was shared by Kayyem. "There might be the perception, particularly by our
enemies, that the entire White House might be compromised, and that's kind of scary," she said,
adding: "The audience isn't just us and Omarosa and Trump. It's the Chinese and the
Russians."
Is recording in the Situation Room a crime?
Moss said, however, that just because the conversation occurred in the Situation Room, which
is actually a secured series of connected rooms, there is "no real obvious criminal liability".
All staffers entering the area must lock away their cell phones and other insecure electronic
devices. But he noted the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security
clearance if she ever wishes to work for the federal government in the future.
What has
the White House said?
"The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation
Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security," said White House press secretary
Sarah Sanders. She added: "Then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack
of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee."
Has anybody in comments noted how far we have swung from absence of actual PROOF Russia did
the Skripal "poisonings" (or even Litvenenko for that matter?!) to what seems like complete
acceptance of "guilt," even as major international bodies (OPCW, etc., even Porton Down) have
not been able to tie Russia/Putin to these alleged acts of terror or isolate the "novichoks"
genre of nerve agent ? The Red Queen triumphs.
Does mere accusation now stand for "truth" in this inmates-running-the-asylum charade USA
is putting on? If the "big lie" (Lenin, BTW not Goebbels, originally) works this easily, we
are indeed down the chute & over the brink. Orwell is spinning in his grave (gnashing his
teeth).
"... Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the first time in the Litvinenko affaire. ..."
All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why Litvinenko was a target
for unfriendly Russian actions
I am pretty sure Litvinenko wasn't particularly loved in Russia: he was a traitor, after
all, and, judging by his actions, a pretty miserable human being. However, building a case on
motive alone is not possible, if for no other reason than because a motive is by definition
subjective. You could analyze until your face turns blue how Putin felt about Litvinenko's
accusations but you'd never come to any firm conclusion, for only Putin can possibly know
that.
Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to
point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have
proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal
investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well
won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the
first time in the Litvinenko affaire.
The same patters was repeated exactly in the Skripal case. This tells you who is the
"highly likely" culprit, doesn't it? These two scenarios are so much alike, the have the same
author – not necessarily the same person, but definitely the same office.
Viktoria Skripal spoke to her cousin Julia by phone twice in July: the first time on the
4th, when the two argued and Julia blamed Viktoria for the publicity over the poisoning; the
second time towards the end of the month, when Julia apologised to Viktoria after getting
Internet access and reading what had been reported in the media. In one of these phone calls,
Julia revealed her father was still using a breathing tube.
"... The area of contest is now the rest of the world. America will try to convince the rest of the world to join its sanctions against Russia. Russia will try to convince them not to. ..."
Hello,
All of this revolves around the imminent fact that the "honest" British spooks are about to
get exposed when Trump declassifies the hoax documents about Russian interference (lol) in
elections.
I don't understand why Russian economists believe they have to belong to the corrupt,
bankrupt us monopoly dollar system? stop all exports of gas, oil to the europe cowards, and
any other country that continues to steal the wealth of the Russian resources from its
people. A very sick bunch in DC and London.
Turn all of these resources inward to allow the Russian people to prosper, with energy
infrastructure, farming techniques with heated greenhouses, etc... hey you have a lot of real
farmers in Africa that could spawn new agricultural developments in the east Russian
territory, about 15,000 farmers, unbelievable opportunity and resources for Russia to help
people from a racially, evil to the core, government in Africa. Boycott all of Africa. There
are real people getting killed there, no fake news .
This is exactly how the West operates ,especially the US and UK. There you have it , right
out in open for everyone to see.They have been doing this for a long time , especially since
the CIA , part of the shadow government , took control of the Western world. Now it is no
longer covert ,it is right in our face. And why they had JFK assassinated ,because he saw
what he was up against . Kennedy wanted to smash these covert and corrupted organizations
into pieces.
Colluding with West for so many years to put down smaller countries is certainly not a
quality of an angelic government and the country as Russia has been sometimes painted. Why do
we forget tens of millions of Russians abused just across Russian borders, never mentioned by
the government that seems only to care about wellbeing of the criminal oligarchs? Why do we
forget the collusion against Serbian people that lasted for approximately 20 years and led to
the destruction of that small nation? Why do we forget Russian support to numerous UN (
Western) sanctions against many nations around the world? Why do we forget betrayal of Cuba
in such devious way by Mr. Putin? Why such contempt towards own nation and its heroes by
honouring a Nazi-like figure like Netanyahu on the Victory Parade? Why strangulation of N.
Korea? Why ,why.. I actually tend to believe that God is finally acting upon many curses cast
on Russian government and is using the US as his chosen tool. Quite a justice.
I was excoriated and accused of being a liar on RI over the weekend because I quoted this
article, originally published in Pravda. The point was made by the one who did this that no
Russian or Russian sympathizer (such as the author of this article would want additional
sanctions on Russia.
The comparison was that a small amounts of certain types of medicine can be beneficial,
but in large doses can be fatal. The gist of the comment was that a small amount of sanctions
can be good to bring more independence to the Russian economy, but additional sanctions would
be harmful.
Well, now RI itself publishes the article from the idiot Hinchey in asking for more and
more sanctions because of how wonderful they will be for Russia.
The area of contest is now the rest of the world. America will try to convince the
rest of the world to join its sanctions against Russia. Russia will try to convince them not
to.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
The announcement of sanctions on Wednesday came despite the fact that the US is entirely
aware that Russia was not responsible for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, UK in
March, he said.
"This is a political demand... this is designed to undercut the overtures from the Trump
administration for President Trump directly and also Senator Rand Paul - now in Moscow - to
warm relations with Russia." Former Pentagon official Michael Maloof echoed that sentiment,
telling RT that "you have Donald Trump's foreign policy and you now have the Trump
administration's foreign policy."
He added that the sanctions are being orchestrated by the deep state to "make the president
look bad and basically to corner him."
[ Exactly. Poisoning was likely executed by MI6 or CIA, to sabotage the US relationship with
Russia at the behest of the Deep State .]
"... "While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives." ..."
"... It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who profit from its concomitant pain. ..."
"neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national
interests"
Its almost impossible to talk about a mining economy and a "free market" in the same
sentence, Richard. a mining economy is is synonymous with corruption, Dutch disease and
political grabs for cash etc. In the height of the 2009 GFC announced by kev07, unskilled
labourers in the pilbara were still earning $100/hr. Real estate prices for 3 bed shacks in
karratha were starting at $1million plus. The blue collar dominated pilbara area was
overwhelmed with greed fed by left politicians hiding behind socialist ideals. The reality
was that left wing economists recognized the "dutch disease" problem and their solution was
to flood the area with greedy blue collar workers who were blowing their enormous salaries on
prostitutes, alcohol and gambling in the hope that profits from the mining boom would be
flushed into other parts of the economy.
The solution? partially transition Australia's economy to an innovation driven economy
because innovation is linked to learning which is linked to stronger self esteem and self
efficacy in the community. an innovation driven econmy is the better way of promting social
development in the community and an innovation driven economy is the most effective way for
politicians to transition to the benefits of a "free market" driven economy.... the reality
is that transitioning to an innovation would require smacking the socialists over the back of
the head in the hope that aspiring socialists will respect the ideas and intellectual
property of others as opposed to continue to assimilate intellectual property in the name of
employment generation and the common good
I dont fear the potential rise of neoliberalism, although i understand that spruiking a
free market whilst talking about mining is ridiculous.
I fear the individuals who are have been talking about mining, and targeting/victimising the
non politically active conservatives for more than 2 decades in the name of socialism
"While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no
alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the
so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives."
Excellent article Richard, you have captured the ideology and its dogma quite
specularly.
It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who
profit from its concomitant pain.
Examples from today's headlines and a few from last week:
Russian officials reacted with outrage and markets slumped on Thursday morning following
the announcement of tough new US sanctions over Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent in
the Salisbury attack.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the sanctions were "absolutely
unlawful and don't conform to international law", as politicians vowed to respond with
countermeasures, which could include bans on the exports of rockets or resources for
manufacturing.
"The theatre of the absurd continues," tweeted Dmitry Polyanskiy, first
deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN. "No proofs, no clues, no logic, no
presumption of innocence, just highly-likelies. Only one rule: blame everything on Russia, no
matter how absurd and fake it is. Let us welcome the United Sanctions of America!"
One senior Russian MP called the US a "police state".
A member of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia could block exports of RD-180 rocket
engines to the US as a potential countermeasure, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
The State Department said the new sanctions would come into effect on 22 August and would be
followed by much more sweeping measures, such as suspending diplomatic relations and revoking
Aeroflot landing rights, if Russia did not take "remedial" action within 90 days.
Moscow is not expected to agree to the response required by US legislation, which includes
opening up Russian scientific and security facilities to international inspections to assess
whether it is producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law.
"Certainly it is really up to Russia to make that decision, whether they meet this
criteria," a senior administration official said. "The second round of sanctions are in general
more draconian than the first round."
Another senior state department official said the US received in March "persuasive
information" from the UK that Russia was behind the attack. It made its own determination last
weekend and was now acting on the basis of "objective facts" and "legal requirements".
Russian markets took the news poorly. Stocks in Aeroflot, the country's national carrier,
fell by 12% in trading before lunchtime on Thursday over concerns that its direct flights
between Russia and the US could be halted entirely.
Russia's currency, the rouble, fell to below 66 to the US dollar, a 4% slide from Wednesday
morning that began with the leak of a separate draft sanctions bill that could see Russia named
a state sponsor of terror.
The US has already expelled 60 suspected Russian spies as part of a global response to the
March attack in Salisbury against
Sergei Skripal , a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, and his daughter,
Yulia , in which a rare and potent Russian-made nerve agent, novichok, was found to have
been used.
This is attack on ruble. Kind of Magnitsky II set of moves. Strange if view of Trump supposed
attempt to split Russia and China in Helsinki. You should chose a single target in such
cases.
Sanctions weaken the effect of Iranian sanctions. While the goal is to undermine the Russian
economy -- the effect of negative expectations is always stronger than a onetime action -- 90
days allow to avoid big financial losses for major banks. The requirement of inspection of Russia
objects is from Iraq war textbook.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar. ..."
"... This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016. ..."
"... For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , ..."
"... This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. ..."
sanctions was
apparently enough to create jitters on the Russian stock exchanges, and the Russian
Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to
the dollar.
This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the
worst valuation since mid-November, 2016.
This incident has not gone unanswered in Moscow. The Russian Embassy in the United States
called for documentation about the source and reasoning behind these new sanctions, as reported by TASS:
The Russian embassy in the United States has called on the US Department of State to
publish correspondence on the introduction of new sanctions on Moscow over the Skripal
incident, the embassy said in a statement.
" For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK,
which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We
confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of
the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , " the
statement reads.
"We suggested publishing our correspondence on this issue. No answer has followed so
far," the Russian embassy added.
This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity
for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing
intensity since 2013. It reveals the machinations of a very divided American government,
with the "deep State" or establishment politicians and foreign policy makers completely
unwilling to even give Russia a fair shake at representing itself. This policy is shared by the
United Kingdom, as this
piece by The Duran's Editor in Chief, Alexander Mercouris shows, with this summary of
violations of due process the British authorities are committing with regard to Russia:
(1) The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with
Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at
who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway;
(2) The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a
specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty. As I have explained
previously this
reverses the burden of proof : in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed
to prove the defendant's guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence;
(3) The British government refuses to share with Russia -- the party it says is guilty --
the 'evidence' upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in
this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was
poisoned.
This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the
evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence;
(4) The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the
Chemical Weapons
Convention to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows
States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and
resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter
which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to
concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which
receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the
requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting
State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request,
with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation
of how the information provided resolves the matter.
(5) The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal,
though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal
assault on their territory.
This is a potentially serious matter since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal
the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which
exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from
learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised
following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from
carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the
British authorities say has taken place.
I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone
almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media.
The Americans are playing the same game here, and, regrettably, President Trump's overtures
towards repairing this relationship are almost sure to be torn out from under him by the
actions of this virulent group of people. It is quite possible that this is the very reason for
these new sanctions.
The perspective of the American government as one divided, with a rabid force in favor of
continuing to isolate and vilify a great power in the world for no good reason, is sure to have
repercussions. However, given the gradual realignment of Russia and China to be in closer and
closer partnership, and Russia's increasing prominence in Asian and Eastern Hemisphere affairs,
the end result of this behavior is likely to damage the United States and its standing in the
world over the long run.
6. Focused on violence through brownshirt stormtroopers who beat up any who disagreed
7. Had an intelligence service which focused on crushing dissent and spying on its own
people
8. Placed more power in the central government and state then any Nation before it.
All of the above are things proposed or carried out by leftists. It is almost as if the true
parties espoused by people are those who support individualism and those who support
collectivism. Spoiler alert for the Leftist retards: Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Your Statist Sanders Utopia will never come to fruition. The "Kind Socialist
Politicians" will sell you out to the elite in a heartbeat.
All you are doing is focusing the
power of your society into one single glass for the Elite to sip as they assfuck you into
oblivion, Death toll of all of these Statist Nations, IE Imperial Japan, Soviet Union,
Communist China, the People's "Republic" of Korea, etc is over 200,000,000 and counting.
How is it that the acronym NAZI Literally has the word SOCIALIST in it and people still
think they were right wing??? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the average
individual?
"Door handle" theory is dead on arrival. the main theory now is that UK government gave Skripals different agent BX
(similar to LSD and which caused hallucinations) and they voluntarily took it in order to start preplanned Skripal false flag
provocation. That's why military nurse accidentally appeared near Skripals soon after poisoning.
Notable quotes:
"... Following the attack on the Skripals, European and US allies took Britain's side on the attack, ordering the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats since the height of the Cold War, reports Reuters . In response, Russia retaliated by expelling Western diplomats, while the Kremlin has repeatedly denied involvement in the attacks - while accusing the UK intelligence agencies of staging the attack in order to inflame anti-Russia tensions. ..."
"... Prior to the investigation's focus on the door handle, for a period of almost three weeks there were at least nine other theories proposed by the authorities as to where the Skripals came into contact with the poison. These included the restaurant, the pub, the bench, the cemetery, the car, the flowers, the luggage, the porridge and even a drone. During that time, police officers and investigators were entering and leaving the house, by the door, since it was not known to be the place where the poison was located. ..."
"... Once the door handle theory was established, those who had been in and out of the property during the previous three weeks would naturally have been concerned about the possibility that they had been contaminated. ..."
"... Every officer who entered the house after 4th March, and before the door handle became an object of interest, should have been given a medical examination to check for signs of poisoning. ..."
"... Initial reports about Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey stated that he was poisoned at the bench, after coming to the aid of Mr Skripal and Yulia. However, on 9th March, Lord Ian Blair stated that D.S. Bailey had actually become poisoned after visiting Mr Skripal's house. Since he was thought to have been poisoned with a military grade nerve agent, and since it was thought that this had occurred at Mr Skripal's house, the immediate next step should have been to seal off the house and set up a mobile decontamination unit outside. However, numerous photographs show officers in normal uniforms standing close to the door long after Lord Blair's claim ..."
"... Can the authorities explain how these decisions did not put the health and even the lives of those officers in jeopardy? ..."
"... Before the door handle theory was settled on, the majority of competing theories put out by the authorities tended to assume that Mr Skripal was poisoned long before he went to Zizzis. For example, the flowers, the cemetery, the luggage, the porridge and the car explanations all assume this to be the case. What this means is that according to the assumptions of police at that time, when Mr Skripal fed the ducks near the Avon Playground with a few local boys, at around 1:45pm, he was already contaminated. Yet although this event was caught on CCTV camera, it was more than two weeks before the police contacted the parents of these boys. ..."
"... Can the authorities comment on why they did not air the CCTV footage on national television, in an effort to appeal to the boys or their parents to come forward, and whether the delay in tracking them down might have put them in danger? ..."
"... If the door handle was the place of poisoning, it is extremely likely that the bread handed by Mr Skripal to the boys would have been contaminated. Certainly, areas that he visited after this incident were deemed to be so much at risk that they were either closed down (for example, The Mill and Zizzis, which are both still closed), or destroyed (for instance, the restaurant table, the bench and – almost certainly – the red bag near the bench have all been destroyed). ..."
"... It has been said that one of the reasons the Government is/was so sure that the ultimate culprit behind the poisoning was the Russian state, is the apparent existence of an "FSB handbook" which, amongst other things, allegedly features descriptions of how to apply nerve agent to a door handle. Given that the Prime Minister first made a formal accusation of culpability on 12th March in her speech to the House of Commons, the Government must therefore have been in possession of this manual prior to that day. However, claims about the door handle being the location of the poison did not appear until late March (the first media reports of it were on 28th March). What this means is there was a delay of several weeks between the Government making its accusation, based partly on the apparent existence of the "door handle manual", and the door handle of Mr Skripal's house being a subject of interest to investigators. ..."
"... "We are learning more about Sergei and Yulia's movements but we need to be clearer around their exact movements on the morning of the incident. We believe that at around 9.15am on Sunday, 4 March, Sergei's car may have been in the areas of London Road, Churchill Way North and Wilton Road. Then at around 1.30pm it was seen being driven down Devizes Road, towards the town centre. We need to establish Sergei and Yulia's movements during the morning, before they headed to the town centre. Did you see this car, or what you believe was this car, on the day of the incident? We are particularly keen to hear from you if you saw the car before 1.30pm. If you have information, please call the police on 101." ..."
"... Now that Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been awake and able to communicate for around four months, these details are presumably now all known to investigators. In the normal course of such a high profile investigation, details such as these would be relayed to the public in the hope of jogging memories to prompt more information. And in fact, many such details have been released to the public in this case. Yet, confirmation of Mr Skripal's and Yulia's movements that day remain conspicuous by their absence. ..."
"... These questions have nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. On the contrary, they are all based on the assumption that the two central claims made by the authorities regarding the mode and the method used in this incident are correct. They are, however, very serious and perfectly legitimate questions about the way the authorities have dealt with this incident, on their own terms and on the basis of their own claims . ..."
"... "Reports that the United Kingdom is planning to ask Russia to extradite suspects in a Salisbury poisoning incident are nothing more than a "speculation," a spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office told Sputnik on Monday. ..."
The British government has prepared an extradition request to Moscow for two
Russians they claim carried out the Salisbury nerve agent attack, according to The Guardian ,
citing Whitehall and security sources.
Former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on
a public bench in Salisbury in early March - which UK authorities believe was due to a nerve
agent called Novichok.
Months later on June 30, nearby residents Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, a 44-year-old
mother of three, were subsequently treated for exposure to the nerve agent. Rowley recovered
while Sturgess died.
Authorities are operating on the assumption that the Skripals were poisoned using a
novichok-laced perfume bottle or a door handle smeared with the nerve agent, while Rowley may
have picked up said bottle and given to Sturgess, who applied it to her wrists.
Sturgess received a much higher dose than the other three after apparently smearing the
substance on her wrists, having sprayed it from the bottle. Rowley's recovery was helped,
according to a source, by one of the first responders being familiar with the nerve agent,
having been involved in helping the Skripals.
The Porton Down military defence laboratory near Salisbury has examined the novichok found
on the Skripals' doorknob and the perfume bottle, but police have not yet said whether they
are from the same batch. -
The Guardian
UK authorities believe they have pieced together the movements of the two Russians, from
their entry into the UK to their departure after the alleged assassination attempt.
Following the attack on the Skripals, European and US allies took Britain's side on the
attack, ordering the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats since the height of the Cold War,
reports
Reuters . In response, Russia retaliated by expelling Western diplomats, while the Kremlin
has repeatedly denied involvement in the attacks - while accusing the UK intelligence agencies
of staging the attack in order to inflame anti-Russia tensions.
Oddly, Sergei Skripal was linked by
The Telegraph to a consultant with former UK spy Christopher Steele's Orbis Business
Intelligence, who he reportedly had repeated contacts with.
The motive for trying to assassinate the 66-year-old skripal is unknown. Skripal moved to
the UK in a Kremlin-approved "spy swap" in 2010, causing many to question why they would
suddenly try to take him out a decade later.
In July, journalist Rob Slane compiled
10 questions for the UK authorities on the ever-confusing Skripal case:
***
The two most basic claims made by the Government and investigators regarding the method and
the mode in the Salisbury poisoning are these:
That military grade nerve agent was used to poison Mr Skripal
That it was applied to the door handle of his house
These claims raise a number of very obvious questions. For example, how did the assassin(s)
apply such a powerful chemical without wearing protective clothing? How did the people who are
said to have come into contact with the substance not die immediately, or at the very least
suffer irreparable damage to their Central Nervous Systems? How did this military grade nerve
agent manage not only to have a delayed onset, but also managed to affect a large 66-year-old
man and his slim 33-year-old daughter, both of whom would have vastly different metabolic
rates, at exactly the same time?
These are perfectly reasonable questions that deserve reasonable answers. I am aware,
however, that no matter how obvious and rational such questions might be, doing so places one
– at least in the eyes of the authorities – in the camp of the conspiracy theorist.
This is disingenuous. One of the marks of a true conspiracy theorist is that he is someone who
refuses to accept an explanation for an event, even after being presented with facts which fit
and explain it coherently . But when the "facts" presented in a case do not fit the event they
are supposed to explain, and are neither rational nor coherent -- as in the Salisbury case --
then calling the person who raises legitimate questions a "conspiracy theorist" is a bit rich,
is it not?
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this piece, what I'd like to do is work on the assumption
that the "Military Grade Nerve Agent on the Door Handle" claim is correct. And working from
this assumption, I want to ask some questions about how the authorities have handled the case.
The point is this: These questions are not really intended to challenge the official claims;
rather the intention is to ask whether the authorities have handled the case correctly on their
own terms .
1. Prior to the investigation's focus on the door handle, for a period of almost three weeks
there were at least nine other theories proposed by the authorities as to where the Skripals
came into contact with the poison. These included the restaurant, the pub, the bench, the
cemetery, the car, the flowers, the luggage, the porridge and even a drone. During that time,
police officers and investigators were entering and leaving the house, by the door, since it
was not known to be the place where the poison was located.
Can the authorities explain how these officers and investigators were not poisoned?
2. Once the door handle theory was established, those who had been in and out of the
property during the previous three weeks would naturally have been concerned about the
possibility that they had been contaminated.
Can the authorities tell us what steps were taken to reassure these officers?
3. Every officer who entered the house after 4th March, and before the door handle became an
object of interest, should have been given a medical examination to check for signs of
poisoning.
Can the authorities confirm that this took place for every officer?
4. Initial reports about Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey stated that he was poisoned at the
bench, after coming to the aid of Mr Skripal and Yulia. However, on 9th March, Lord Ian Blair
stated that D.S. Bailey had actually become poisoned after visiting Mr Skripal's house. Since
he was thought to have been poisoned with a military grade nerve agent, and since it was
thought that this had occurred at Mr Skripal's house, the immediate next step should have been
to seal off the house and set up a mobile decontamination unit outside. However, numerous
photographs show officers in normal uniforms standing close to the door long after Lord Blair's
claim.
Can the authorities confirm why the house was not sealed off and a decontamination unit set
up immediately after it became known that D.S. Bailey had been there, and why officers with no
protective clothing on were allowed to continue standing guard outside the house for the next
few weeks?
5. Can the authorities explain how these decisions did not put the health and even the lives
of those officers in jeopardy?
6. Before the door handle theory was settled on, the majority of competing theories put out
by the authorities tended to assume that Mr Skripal was poisoned long before he went to Zizzis.
For example, the flowers, the cemetery, the luggage, the porridge and the car explanations all
assume this to be the case. What this means is that according to the assumptions of police at
that time, when Mr Skripal fed the ducks near the Avon Playground with a few local boys, at
around 1:45pm, he was already contaminated. Yet although this event was caught on CCTV camera,
it was more than two weeks before the police contacted the parents of these boys.
Can the authorities explain why it took more than two weeks to track down the boys, who
– as the CCTV apparently shows – were given bread by Mr Skripal?
7. Can the authorities comment on why they did not air the CCTV footage on national
television, in an effort to appeal to the boys or their parents to come forward, and whether
the delay in tracking them down might have put them in danger?
8. If the door handle was the place of poisoning, it is extremely likely that the bread
handed by Mr Skripal to the boys would have been contaminated. Certainly, areas that he visited
after this incident were deemed to be so much at risk that they were either closed down (for
example, The Mill and Zizzis, which are both still closed), or destroyed (for instance, the
restaurant table, the bench and – almost certainly – the red bag near the bench
have all been destroyed).
Can the authorities comment on how the boys, who were handed bread by Mr Skripal, managed to
avoid contamination?
9. It has been said that one of the reasons the Government is/was so sure that the ultimate
culprit behind the poisoning was the Russian state, is the apparent existence of an "FSB
handbook" which, amongst other things, allegedly features descriptions of how to apply nerve
agent to a door handle. Given that the Prime Minister first made a formal accusation of
culpability on 12th March in her speech to the House of Commons, the Government must therefore
have been in possession of this manual prior to that day. However, claims about the door handle
being the location of the poison did not appear until late March (the first media reports of it
were on 28th March). What this means is there was a delay of several weeks between the
Government making its accusation, based partly on the apparent existence of the "door handle
manual", and the door handle of Mr Skripal's house being a subject of interest to
investigators.
Can the authorities therefore tell us whether the Government's failure to pass on details of
the "door handle manual" put the lives of the officers going in and out of Mr Skripal's house
from 5th March to 27th March in jeopardy?
10. On 17th March, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said:
"We are learning more about Sergei and Yulia's movements but we need to be clearer around
their exact movements on the morning of the incident. We believe that at around 9.15am on
Sunday, 4 March, Sergei's car may have been in the areas of London Road, Churchill Way North
and Wilton Road. Then at around 1.30pm it was seen being driven down Devizes Road, towards
the town centre. We need to establish Sergei and Yulia's movements during the morning, before
they headed to the town centre. Did you see this car, or what you believe was this car, on
the day of the incident? We are particularly keen to hear from you if you saw the car before
1.30pm. If you have information, please call the police on 101."
Now that Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been awake and able to communicate for around four
months, these details are presumably now all known to investigators. In the normal course of
such a high profile investigation, details such as these would be relayed to the public in the
hope of jogging memories to prompt more information. And in fact, many such details have been
released to the public in this case. Yet, confirmation of Mr Skripal's and Yulia's movements
that day remain conspicuous by their absence.
Can the authorities confirm that the movements of the Skripals that day are now understood,
and that they will be made known shortly, in order that more information from the public might
then be forthcoming?
These questions have nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. On the contrary, they are all
based on the assumption that the two central claims made by the authorities regarding the mode
and the method used in this incident are correct. They are, however, very serious and perfectly
legitimate questions about the way the authorities have dealt with this incident, on their own
terms and on the basis of their own claims .
"Reports that the United Kingdom is planning to ask Russia to extradite suspects in a
Salisbury poisoning incident are nothing more than a "speculation," a spokesperson for the UK
Foreign Office told Sputnik on Monday.
"This is just more speculation. The police investigation is ongoing and anything on the
record will need to come from the Police," the spokesperson said."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We
investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign
in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what
appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump- style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant.
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the
Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to
the Trump campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted
to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning
moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill
Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia ("the way the money
was earned was illegal") without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where
the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million to
Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible for me to
evaluate, Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other
accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by
President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking
system.
Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over
Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely
innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward
the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia.
It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the
American establishment.
"William Felix "Bill" Browder was born into a Jewish family in Chicago, Illinois.
Browder's paternal grandfather was Earl Browder , who was born in Kansas in
1891. [1] He was a
radical and had lived in the Soviet Union for several years from 1927 and married Raisa
Berkman, a Jewish Russian woman, while living there. [1]
After his return to the United States in 1931, [1] Earl Browder
became the leader of the Communist Party USA , and ran for
U.S. president in 1936 and 1940. [13]
After World War II, Earl Browder lost favor with Moscow and was expelled from the American
Communist party . [1]
Remove all jew supremacists from all positions of power, no matter how small-NOW!
Get It, Read It:
"A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" Stephon Mitford Goodson
Great film that takes you from Browder the poor defrauded good guy with a hero lawyer
Magnitsky, to a bad guy with Magnitsky the long employed accountant who made none of the
assertions injected into the Russian -English translations that no one reviewed. But why is
this film banned in the West? (/s)
Not only is Steele part of this shady group but there are ties with Alexander Litvinenko,
Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Perepelichny (who all meet thier untimely deaths) around Bill
Browder (directly/indirectly)"
As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and "I do not know" on any substantial
inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very interested in hearing Perepelichny.
This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before the bill passed the US House:
on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside his mansion in London. The
police investigation did not bring any tangible result but the theory of "Russian mafia"
involved was timely injected into the international media. One month later Magnitsky Act
was signed by president Obama
McCain hand carried the Steele Dossier to Comey. McCain was in Canada when MI6 operative
Sir Andrew Wood enlisted McCain. Then McCain took the bait, no he was working to take Trump
out.
He tried to get out of it in his new book, The Restless Wave.
I've watched McCain for years, I believe he has brain damage from the Vietnam War.
I can understand repealing Jackson-Vanik because it pertained to how U. S. deals with
"non-market economies." Free market mechanisms were introduced in Russia and China since the
1970s so there needed to be changes. However, if there's government corruption in other
nation states, how does this rate an act of Congress? Why repeal the law that required annual
reviews of trade relations and replace it with normalization of trade only to sanction
foreign government officials that have never even had a trial? What about all the financial
misdeeds, money laundering, abuse of the banking system that can be traced to Browder, the
congressional instigator? How does Graham, McCain and Cardin benefit by derailing relations
with Russia over ONE GUY's WORD with a dicey past?
Law
In June 2012, the United
States House Committee on Foreign Affairs reported to the House a bill called the Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 4405). The main intention of the law
was to punish Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei
Magnitsky by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and their use of its banking
system. The legislation was taken up by a Senate panel the next week,
sponsored by Senator Ben
Cardin , and cited in a broader review of the mounting tensions in the international
relationship.
In November 2012, provisions of the Magnitsky bill were attached to a House bill (H.R.
6156) normalizing trade with Russia (i.e., repealing the Jackson–Vanik
amendment ) and Moldova . On December 6, 2012, the U.S. Senate
passed the House version of the law, 92-4. The law was signed by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2012.
In 2016, Congress enacted the Global Magnitsky Act which allows the US Government to
sanction foreign government officials implicated in human rights abuses anywhere in the
world.
In 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by William Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeď Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueď Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeď Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
trump has wrecked environmental policy, trade policy and domestic social policy....the
upshots will be: 1- a much more toxic environment & much higher level of respiratory
disease and cancerous related ailments; overall poorer health & health care for the
average citizen 2- higher prices for imported goods, lower level of trade exports, fewer US
based jobs and more off-shoring of US jobs 3- a substantial increase in the homeless
population in the urban areas of this country; increased rates of poverty for the poor, lower
economic prosperity for the lower and lower middle class income brackets; wage stagnation for
the middle & upper middle income brackets; less advanced education & lower worker
productivity and innovation to name just a few of the impacts created by this idiot....in
simple in English, Trump and his so-called initiatives are shafting this country in almost
every way possible
What part of international law is not just pissed on toiler paper strewn over the floors of a
urinal? Which post WWII president respected this law?
None.
International law, since WWII failed. It failed in '47 when no referendum was held in
Palestine - against Chapter 1, Article 1 paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. It failed in Crimea,
when the results of such a referendum was spat on by the previous war criminal to sit in the
Oval Office. It fails now as sanctions are used unilaterally - being equivalent to the use of
force in result, they should be
But then let's not stop at after the war. The US is the only country to nuke civilians.
6/7 US four star generals at the time said the action had no strategic or tactical purpose
whatsoever.
The US is what ISIS dreams to be, the sooner it falls into obscurity the better.
Pure nonsense. The Great Depression began on October 29, 1929. FDR was inaugurated on March
4, 1933 nearly 4 years after it began. Hoover had actually only been in office for just over
6 months before Black Tuesday. GDP began growing and unemployment began falling in 1933
shortly after FDR took office. The Depression officially came to an end in 1939 when GDP
returned to pre-Depression levels.
There is no long term US growth. There is a debt default after people realize the fact that
the top of the whole US government is incompetent. That it has chained itself to such
astronomic liabilities for useless wars (as the Empire has not succeeded in world hegemony),
is even sadder. It coould have spent the $5tn of Iraq and Afghanistan on building shit, but
instead it bombed shit.
Trump doesn't matter for US long run - in 5-10 years time the country will be only found
in history books.
Remember Kruschev's (sp?) last words on leaving office, and I'm paraphrasing: "Don't worry
about America, they'll spend themselves to death (just like we have)". Continued economic
growth is a wet dream of Wall Street origin. We are massively overpopulated and rapidly using
up earth's natural resources at an increasingly unsustainable rate. We must begin to reduce
our growth, not keep increasing it. Population density stress is killing us now and only
increasing every day along with the 220,000 new mouths to feed that we are turning out into a
world that has no room for 28,000,000 homeless migrants already. Just how crazy are we
really. If this article is to be believed, we are nuts. E.F. Schumacher is rolling in his
grave! Stress R Us
The contribution of a president to the national debt depends a bit on how you calculate it.
You could simply look at rhe dates of inauguration or go a step further and look at the
fiscal years. For the latter see :
In absolute terms Obama is indeed at the top of the list, percentagewise his predecessor
played a larger part. No matter how you look at it or what the causes were, under Bush and
Obama the U.S. debt seems to have spiralled out of of control and Trump is doing bugger all
to stop that trend.
On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20,
2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. Most people would calculate Obama added $9
trillion to the debt, more than any other president. But then Tom Eleven isn't "Most people".
"... In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia. ..."
"All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create
for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as 'systemic
problems in the Euro-Atlantic region' (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure
close to Russian borders, its 'offensive capabilities' and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring 'global functions', the 'symptoms'
of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization
of space) "
Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting
joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But
Britain and the US are mounted on Russia's borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.
In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to
NATO and are also building fences with Russia.
But what do Russia's neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A
survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis
in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to
Gallup , a majority
52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind
Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.
At very least, a leader should be able to tell right from wrong... and sadly, too often in
this world, "nice guys finish last".
"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain."
Plato
n 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by Wiliam Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeď Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueď Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeď Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
The Skripals' misadventure (contretemps, dust up, theater, bit of bother) is absurd but
did the U.K. government embrace it with alacrity and a vengeance or what?
The only thing
missing was narration by Edgar R. Murrow. Not to mention the Skripals.
The very absurdity of it calls into question anything that preceded it with the same story
line, viz., "Russians are animals."
What anyone needs to be wary of is the people who push this and other "narratives":
"Animal Assad," "religion of peace," "multiculturalism," "propositional nation,"
"comprehensive immigration law reform," "living Constitution," "equality," "hate speech,"
"Iranchiefsponsorofterror," "regime change," "treason," "collusion," "McCarthyism,"
"humanitarian intervention," "global/climate freeze/warming/change/disruption,"
"anti-Semitism," "Judeo-Christian," "target civilians/hospitals," and such like.
McFaul lies. and that raises question about his connections to intelligence agencies as
well.
In no way a regular businessman would lobby for Magnitsky act, using false evidence and
blatant lies (for example that Magnitsky was a lawyer; Browder admitted that this is a lie in his
court deposition. This was yet another false flag operation with fingerprints of MI6
It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems. I used to listen to Thom
Hartmann and Rachel Maddow when they were on Air America, and their main political positions
were for working people. Now, all they do is partisan politics which they don't seem to
understand benefits only the Deep State war party.
Incidentally, State of the Nation website, http://www.sott.net , has an article by Alex Krainer, who wrote
the book about Bill Browder's crooked dealings in Russia. His book, which was suppressed by
Browder first, i think is "Grand Deception", now available from Red Pill Press for $25 (and
must be selling well because it's being reprinted). I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on
sott.net. Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding.
Also, there is a video on Youtube, "The Rise of Putin and the Fall of the Russian Jewish
Oligarchs", 2 parts. I only saw the beginning showing how the Russian people were given state
vouchers that led to the oligarchs buying them up for their own profit and plunging Russians
into shock therapy disaster instigated by IMF and other US led monetary agencies including
Harvard. This is why it is so incredible how Americans receive political "perception control"
when the truth is exactly opposite of what they are being told. At least more people are
realizing the lies being told about Russia and Putin.
BROWDER MOVIE. A Russian documentary maker believed everything Browder said and started a
film to justify him. As it progressed, he discovered anomalies and came to realise the story
was false.
See here . It is moving around the Net now and it's worth looking for because Browder's
story is a primary founding myth of the Putin hysteria. The film is fatal to Browder's
story.
"... Some things are now clearer though. The settled narrative has been for months that the initial 'Novichok' attack on the Skripals had been via a "gel" ..."
"... The government claims that the #Novichok poison was a "gel" smeared onto Sergei Skripal's "front door handle". If the #Novichok was in the form of a gel, how could it be in a perfume bottle which are only designed to hold liquids? pic.twitter.com/BV0pUY5uAM ..."
"... More importantly, if this narrative were to be accepted, it doesn't explain how long (several hours) the substance took to work, nor the fact that it became effective on both Skripals at precisely the same moment – despite the huge divergence in their size, weight, age, and state of health. ..."
"... Mr Rowley of course was a criminal – he had been imprisoned for possession of 11 wraps of heroin in Salisbury only a couple of years before – and is still a daily drug-user. In those circumstances, in any normal police investigation, Mr Rowley would himself be a suspect rather than only a victim in this crime. So far as we know this is not the case, though no-one can ask him in his safe house, even through his non-existent television or undelivered newspapers. ..."
"... American filmmaker and radio host Lee Stranahan, who works out of Washington DC, was a house guest of mine last week. During his brief visit to England, he took his camera to Salisbury. Without wishing to spoil the documentary he's working on, I know he won't mind me saying that of the dozens of people he spoke to at the heart of the crime scene, not a single one of them believed the state version of events. ..."
"... "Russian criminals," ..."
"... "Not the Russian state then?" ..."
"... "They are the least likely suspects," ..."
"... "It was Ukraine." ..."
"... "military-grade deadly nerve agent." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
'Novichok' survivor Charlie Rowley is in a "safe house" but has been denied
access to television and newspapers, according to his brother. The ever-stranger case of the
Salisbury-Amesbury poisonings gets curiouser and curiouser. Whoever said 'Novichok' was a
"military-grade lethal nerve agent" doesn't know their tables.
For a program which Boris Johnson told us had been 10 years in the making, had cost
(presumably) millions of dollars to develop (and "train" agents to put poison on a
doorknob), a 20-percent success rate must have been a bitter disappointment.
Four out of five of those affected by 'Novichok' – Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Detective
Sergeant Bailey, and Charlie Rowley – have survived the contact, with only poor Dawn
Sturgess, a homeless alcoholic, succumbing to its "deadly" effects.
A polythene bag would have been a rather more effective method of assassination.
Moreover, so little of their "training" had the assassins absorbed that they
apparently "discarded" this valuable deadly nerve agent in a perfume bottle in a park,
coincidentally close to the bench on which the Skripals had been found slumped four months
previous. The bottle miraculously evaded the dragnet of "hundreds of anti-terror police"
working on the case. Thus discarded, the perfume bottle carelessly provided evidence which
could well lead to the indictment of the criminals involved. Doubtless
such carelessness was not in the Russian "training manual" that Mr Johnson said was in
the possession of British intelligence.
No information has emerged as to when or where Mr Rowley and/or the late Ms Sturgess
happened upon this perfume bottle, or why in the middle of the swirl of the Salisbury events
they picked it up, took it home, but either waited until the fateful day to spray it or
alternatively the bottle had lain unattended for weeks – even months – despite the
fine-tooth-comb search of the park by the authorities.
Some things are now clearer though. The settled narrative has been for months that the
initial 'Novichok' attack on the Skripals had been via a "gel" on their front doorknob
(in accordance with the manual and the 10-year training program). Not many believe this any
longer, although unfortunately the taxpayer is committed to a way-above-market-price compulsory
purchase of the house.
Apart from anything else, it is difficult to envisage a gel being dispensed via a spray from
a perfume bottle.
The government claims that the #Novichok poison
was a "gel" smeared onto Sergei Skripal's "front door handle".
If the #Novichok was in
the form of a gel, how could it be in a perfume bottle which are only designed to hold
liquids? pic.twitter.com/BV0pUY5uAM
More importantly, if this narrative were to be accepted, it doesn't explain how long
(several hours) the substance took to work, nor the fact that it became effective on both
Skripals at precisely the same moment – despite the huge divergence in their size,
weight, age, and state of health.
It has always seemed much more plausible to me that the Skripals were attacked either in the
restaurant where they had a leisurely full lunch, and where Mr Skripal was initially reported
as behaving oddly towards the end of the restaurant experience, or on the short walk from the
restaurant to the park bench, or on the bench itself. This would be far more consistent with
their simultaneous collapse and, of course, would explain the perfume bottle discarded
nearby.
The perfume bottle being thrown away at all casts significant doubt that this attack was by
a state (any state) actor at all, unless that state actor wanted the substance to be found and
wanted false inferences of its provenance to be drawn. It makes it much more likely to me at
least that the assailants sprayed something at the Skripals for criminal rather than political
purposes and for reasons we can only, for now, speculate upon.
Mr Rowley of course was a criminal – he had been imprisoned
for possession of 11 wraps of heroin in Salisbury only a couple of years before – and is
still a daily drug-user. In those circumstances, in any normal police investigation, Mr Rowley
would himself be a suspect rather than only a victim in this crime. So far as we know this is
not the case, though no-one can ask him in his safe house, even through his non-existent
television or undelivered newspapers.
It will be evident that I think little of the official state narrative in the
Salisbury-Amesbury affair, but you'd be surprised at the kind of people who agree with me.
American filmmaker and radio host Lee Stranahan, who works out of Washington DC, was a house
guest of mine last week. During his brief visit to England, he took his camera to Salisbury.
Without wishing to spoil the documentary he's working on, I know he won't mind me saying that
of the dozens of people he spoke to at the heart of the crime scene, not a single one of them
believed the state version of events.
I myself spoke to a senior British Army officer at a black-tie event in London last week.
There were hundreds of them there, so I'm not giving his identity away. He asked me, who did I
really think was responsible for the 'Novichok' affair?
"Russian criminals," I answered. "Not the Russian state then?" he pressed. "They are the least likely suspects," I said. At which point this heavily decorated soldier leant over and whispered in my ear, "It
was Ukraine."
He offered no evidence, I should say, and – but for his rank and position – I
wouldn't even bother relaying it. But that is what he said.
Finally, I wish to place on record another of my dissident views on this matter. I do not
believe that the substance used to attack the Skripals, and which we are told killed Ms
Sturgess, was 'Novichok' at all – or any other kind of "military-grade deadly nerve
agent." I am on the trail of this matter and you will be the first to know when I've found
it.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows (including
on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
"... As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013, in the 'Sunday Express', in relation to the Ghouta 'false flag.' ..."
More evidence for the at least passive complicity of GCHQ – for which Matt Tait used
to work, and which Robert Hannigan used to run – in corrupt 'information operations'
comes in a report yesterday on CNN.
'Police have identified two suspects in the poisoning of former Russian double agent
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN
on Thursday.
'The pair left the UK in the wake of the attack on what is believed to have been a
commercial flight, the source added.
'Their departure was revealed in a coded Russian message to Moscow sent after the attack,
which was intercepted by a British base in Cyprus, the source said. The British government
blames the Skripals' poisoning on Russia.'
The base in question is high up in the Troodos mountains, and is formally run by the RAF
but actually a key resource for both GCHQ and NSA in monitoring communications over a wide
area. According to an internal document from the former organisation, it has 'long been
regarded as a 'Jewel in the Crown' by NSA as it offers unique access to the Levant, North
Africa, and Turkey'.
That the quote comes a report in 'The Intercept' in January 2016 revealing that one of the
uses of the Troodos facility is to intercept live video feeds from Israeli drones and fighter
jets brings out how paradoxical the world is. For it also appears to have emerged as an
important resource in 'information operations' in support of 'Borgist' agendas.
The claim about intercepts incriminating the Russians over the Salisbury incident was
first made in a piece by Marco Giannangeli in the Daily Express on 9 April, which followed up
the claims which Colonel de Bretton-Gordon had been instrumental in disseminating, and was
then widely picked up by the MSM.
It was headlined: 'REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal
poisonings,' and opened: 'AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included
the phrase "the package has been delivered".'
Supposedly, this 'prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had
been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.' The messages were 'understood to have
formed "just one part" of the intelligence packet which later allowed Prime Minister Theresa
May to state it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind the attacks.'
As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a
parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013, in the 'Sunday Express', in relation
to the Ghouta 'false flag.'
This one was headlined, even more melodramatically, 'Senior Syrian military chiefs tell
captain: fire chemicals or be shot; BRITISH intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio
messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use of chemical
weapons.'
Part of the story of how bogus claims about 'smoking gun' evidence from 'SIGINT' were used
to support the attempt to use the Ghouta 'false flag' to inveigle the British and Americans
into destroying the Syrian government was told in my SST post on the incident. However, to
mix metaphors, I only scratched the surface of a can of worms.
In a report on the 'Daily Caller' site on 29 August 2013, Kenneth Timmerman claimed that
the sequence had started with an actual intercept by Unit 8200 – the Israeli equivalent
of GCHQ and NSA.
Claiming to base his account on Western intelligence sources, he suggested that:
'According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain,
France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel's famed
Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just
the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.'
While I am not in a position to establish whether his claim is or is not accurate, an AP
report on the same day quoted 'U.S. intelligence officials' explaining that 'an intercept of
Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct
evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander'.
Meanwhile, Timmerman's claim that 'The doctored report was picked up on Israel's Channel 2
TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The
Cable in Washington, DC' is supported by links to the relevant stories, which say what he
claims they say.
Moreover, it seems clear that the 1 September 2013 report was an attempt to counter a
– somewhat devastating – critique made in a 31 August post entitled 'The Troodos
Conundrum' by the former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who had been closely involved with
the facility during his time at the Foreign Office (and has written invaluable material on
the Salisbury incident.)
Precisely because of the closeness of the GCHQ/NSA collaboration, Murray brought out,
there was indeed a major problem explaining why claims about 'SIGINT' had been central to the
case made in the 'Government Assessment' released by the White House on 30 August 2013, but
not even mentioned in the Joint Intelligence Community 'Assessment' produced two days
before.
The answer, Murray suggested, was that the 'intelligence' came from Mossad, and so would
not have been automatically shared with the British. But, given the superior capabilities of
Troodos, if Mossad had it, the British should have also. So his claims 'meshed' with those by
Timmerman and the AP, and the 'Express' report looks like a lame attempt at a cover-up.
Again however, one finds the world is a paradoxical place. As I noted in my SST post,
detailed demolitions of the claims about 'SIGINT' in relation to Ghouta were provided both
Seymour Hersh, in the 'Whose sarin?' article, and also on the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' site
masterminded by one 'sasa wawa.'
Later, it became clear that this was likely to be the Israeli technology entrepreneur Saar
Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200. So this may – or may not – be an indication
of deep divisions within Israeli intelligence.
Between 18 March and 31 April, a fascinating series of posts on the Salisbury incident
appeared on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog. The author, who used the name 'sushi', was a
self-professed IT professsional, who had however obviously acquired an extensive familiarity
with 'chemical forensics' and appeared to have some experience of 'SIGINT.'
In a 14 April post, 'sushi' produced a dismissal of the claims about 'SIGINT' implicating
the Russians over the Salisbury incident quite as contemptuous as that which 'sasa wawa' had
produced in relation to the claims about it incriminating the Syrian government over
Ghouta.
Pointing to the implausibility of the story disseminated by the 'Express', he remarked
that:
'It is doubted that any message traffic is processed on Cyprus. It is more likely that the
entire take is transmitted back to GCHQ in Cheltenham via a fibre optic link. There exabytes
of take are processed, not by a bored flight lieutenant, but by banks of high speed
computers.
'Clearly someone in Cheltenham has committed a programming error. Anyone with any
knowledge of secret communications knows that the code phrase used to confirm a murder in
Salisbury is "small pizza, no anchovies." '
Interestingly, another paper in the 'Express' group made a parallel claim in relation to
the Khan Sheikhoun incident to that about the Ghouta incident, but the story was not picked
up and may indeed have been suppressed.
On 9 April, the paper published a report headlined 'Brit spies' lead role in Syrian air
strikes; RAF BASE IS 'WEAPON.' This claimed that 'within an hour of the airstrike', Troodos
had intercepted communications revealing that nerve gas had been used, and had been delivered
by jets from the Syrian Arab Air Force's Shayrat Air Base.
I was drafting a response to the comment by 'Barbara Ann' – thanks for the link to
the recent posts by Adam Carter – before going out. Returning and reading some very
interesting comments, I think what I wanted to say has more general relevance.
One reason I am reading so much into 'this Dzerzhinsky thing' is the body of accumulating
evidence that people like Tait are part of a system of networks which combine
sanctimoniousness, corruption and stupidity in about equal measures. So some more examples
may be to the point.
Different cases in which I have taken an interest come together in a post by Tait on the
'Lawfare' site on 13 March, entitled 'U.K. Prime Minister's Speech on the Russian Poisoning
of Sergei Skripal: Decoding the Signals.'
In support of the claim that in accusing Russia of a pioneering act of chemical terrorism
Theresa May was relying upon accurate analysis from the 'U.K. intelligence community', Tait
wrote that:
'May then explained that Skripal was poisoned by a "military-grade nerve agent of a type
developed by Russia one of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok.'" She is laying out
the basic groundwork for the government's attribution to a nation state and, more
specifically, Russia. At Porton Down, the U.K. has one of the world's best forensic labs for
analyzing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. With the poisoning of Alexander
Litvinenko in 2006, this lab not only established that Polonium-210 was used but also which
reactor in Russia it came from.'
In the event, as is by now well know, Boris Johnson's claim that Porton Down scientists
had told him that the agent which poisoned the Skripals came from Russia was specifically
repudiated by the head of that organisation, Gary Aitkenhead, on 3 April. Our Foreign
Secretary told a flagrant lie, and was exposed.
As I have shown in previous posts on this site, the 'Inquiry' conducted by Sir Robert Owen
into the death of Litvinenko was patently corrupt. Moreover, it seems highly likely that, in
fabricating 'evidence' to cover up what actually happened, Christopher Steele was doing a
'dry-run' for the fabrication of material in the dossier published by 'BuzzFeed.'
In fact, however, Owen's report made quite clear that the role of Porton Down was
marginal. Furthermore, 'Scientist A1' from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston
quite specifically rejected the claim that 'impurity profiling' made it possible to establish
that the source of the polonium was the Avangard facility at Sarov, her arguments being
accepted by Owen. Either Tait has not bothered to read the report or very much of the
coverage, or he is lying.
What Porton Down did do was to use 'impurity profiling', which can produce 'spectra'
identifying even the tiniest traces of substances, to frustrate the attempt to use the 'false
flag' attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 to inveigle the American and British governments
into destroying the Assad 'régime' and handing the country over to jihadists.
It may well be that this display of competence and integrity led to a 'clampdown' at the
organisation, which encouraged Boris Johnson to believe he could get away with lying about
what its scientists told him.
A general pattern which emerges is that the same small group of 'disinformation peddlers'
resurfaces in different contexts – and the pattern whereby 'private security companies'
are used to create a spurious impression of independence also recurs.
As I bring out in my piece on Ghouta, two figures who were critical in shaping the
'narrative' acccording to which Syrian government responsibility for the atrocity had been
conclusively proved, were Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly the former commanding
officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, and also NATO's
Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, and Dan Kaszeta.
Immediately after the story of the poisoning of the Skripals on 4 March broke, the same
duo reappeared, and have been as critical to shaping the 'narrative' about the later incident
as they were to that about the former.
(For the piece by Kaszeta on 'Bellingcat' which introduced the 'Novichok' theme four days
later, see
https://www.bellingcat.com/... .)
This makes it particular interesting to look at the website of Kaszeta's consultancy,
'Strongpoint Security Limited', in conjunction with the 'Companies House' documentation on
the company.
One would have thought from the website that his company was a small, but hardly
insignificant, player, in the field of 'physical and operational security.' As it happens,
having filed 'Total exemption small company accounts' since its incorporation in May 2011,
last December it filed 'Micro company accounts' for the year to 31 May 2017.
With a turnover of £20,000, staff costs of a bit more than half of that, and a
profit of £394, we can see that although unlike Matt Tait's, Kaszeta's company did
trade, if indeed it was his sole source of income, this pivotal figure in Anglo-American
'disinformation operations' was living on something less than $15,000 a year, at current
exchange rates. (Pull the other one, as we say in Britain.)
This is all the more ironic, as the website brings out quite how critical a figure Kaszeta
has been in obscuring the truth. From the bio he gives, we learn that having started as a
Chemical Officer in the U.S. Army, he worked for 12 years in the White House, dealing with
CBRN matters, before moving to Britain in 2008.
Among the articles to which he links on the site, we see his response in 'NOW Lebanon' in
December 2013 to Hersh's original 'Whose sarin?' piece on Ghouta, -- in which Kaszeta first
introduced the famous 'hexamine hypothesis.'
This – patently preposterous – suggestion that the presence of a single
'impurity' is a 'smoking gun' incriminating the Syrian government has echoed on into the
clearly corrupt OPCW documents purporting to demonstrate that it was responsible for the 4
April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Of some interest in understanding where Kaszeta he is coming from is what he describes as
his 'oldest (and most footnoted on Wikipedia)' piece, which is an article published in 1988
on a site called 'Lituanus', on 'Lithuanian Resistance to Foreign Occupation 1940-52.'
As to Colonel de Bretton-Gordon, it is of interest to look at the attempt to 'finger' the
GRU over the Skripal poisoning published under the title 'UK Poisoning Inquiry turns to
Russian Agency in Mueller Indictments' in the 'New York Times' last Sunday, and the response
by the Russian Embassy in London to a question about it.
The response objects that 'while the British authorities keep concealing all information
concerning the investigation into the Salisbury incident, the newspaper has quoted "one
former US official familiar with the inquiry".'
It also asserts that that crucial evidence which has not been made available to the
Russians – and here, as with Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun, the results of 'impurity
profiling' are critical – appears to have been shared not just with inappropriate
Americans, but with all kinds of others.
And indeed, the Embassy is quite right in suggesting that the claim made by the supposed
creator of 'Novichok', Vladimir Uglev, to the BBC in April about 'all the spectrum data I was
sent recently' has neither been confirmed nor denied. This seems a general pattern –
the 'spectra' which may actually be able to provide definitive answers to questions of
responsibility are only provided to people who can be relied upon to give the 'right'
answers.
The Embassy response also quite fairly refers to a report in the 'Times' also in April,
about the 'intelligence' which had been 'used to persuade world leaders that Moscow was
behind the poisoning' and that the 'Novichok' had been manufactured at the Shikhany facility
at in southwest Russia, which stated that de Bretton-Gordon, 'who had seen the intelligence,
called it very compelling.' He has a long history of lying about CW in Syria – so is
obviously the right person to lie about them in the UK.
It thus becomes interesting to probe into what lies behind the opening of de
Bretton-Gordon's entry on the 'Military Speakers' website ('Real Heroes; Real Stories.')
According to this, he is 'Chief Operating Office of SecureBio Ltd a commercial company
offering CBRN Resilience, consultancy and deployable capabilities.'
From 'Companies House', we learn that the liquidation of 'Secure Bio', which started in in
June 2015, was concluded in August last year. The really interesting thing about the records,
however, is that at the time of the liquidation the company had very large debts, which were
written off, of a kind and in a manner which suggested that de Bretton-Gordon's activities
may have been largely funded by loans from untraceable sources which were not meant to be
repaid.
Actually, with the 'NYT' report we come full circle. Among those quoted is Mark Galeotti
– apparently his admission that he had totally misrepresented the thinking of the
Russian General Staff has not him made more cautious about making extravagant claims about
its Main Intelligence Directorate (misreported as Main Directorate by the 'NYT.')
Also quoted are two figures who play key roles in Owen's Report – the Soviet era-GRU
defector 'Viktor Suvorov' (real name 'Vladimir Rezun') and the former KGB operative Yuri
Shvets. Both of these feature prominently in the posts on the Litvinenko affair to which I
have linked, and both were key members of the 'information operations' network centred around
the late Boris Berezovsky. This now seems to have taken control of American policy, as of
British.
The role of 'Suvorov'/Rezun in attempting to defend the interpretations of Stalin's policy
put forward by MI6 in the run-up to the Second World War, and those asserted later by General
Keitel, and the way he was demolished by the leading American historian of the War in the
East, Colonel David Glantz, and the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, is too large a
subject to go into here.
However, it provides further reason to wonder whether the misreadings of Stalin's policy
which caused MI6 to give advice to Chamberlain which helped destroy the last chances of
preventing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, may still be the 'house view' of that organisation. It was,
obviously, the Pact which spelled 'curtains' both for Poland and the Baltics.
There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the
propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the
Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest
accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.
We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright
criminality through obfuscation and obstruction in the case of the meddling in the 2016
election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people
are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media
channels.
It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced
in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda.
What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons
cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become
extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very
high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to
their dictats.
"... So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook. ..."
Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick
move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war
propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454
) but in CIA crimes against humanity -- specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly illegal
acts."
David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point,
then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain
Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow
Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.
Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we
have common interests in Syria."
Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a
knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the
crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture.
The US was five years late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a
mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights.
So Kramer had to think fast and make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape,
death by dryboard suffocation, and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest
bulb, but that's not a hard job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was
say, "The US does not Torture," robotically over and over.
So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital
interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the
hook.
"... "a calculated attempt to harm our campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," ..."
"... "This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain," ..."
"... I believe Magnitsky died ..."
"... Questions remain, but the fact that he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a 'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. ..."
"... "The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," ..."
"... "I saw facts that do not add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," ..."
"... "There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," ..."
"... "it is not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia." ..."
"... "I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism," ..."
"... "You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," ..."
"... "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live with that." ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation to Browder and his friends," ..."
"... "It goes against your ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case it was different." ..."
Despite
threats of a libel lawsuit, a documentary about the Magnitsky case by a prominent critic of the
Russian government has been shown in Washington. The film rejects the narrative about the case
accepted in the West, on which the US Magnitsky Act is based. The film, titled 'The Magnitsky
Act – Behind the Scenes', was presented to the public for the first time on Monday at the
Newseum, a private museum dedicated to the news industry and freedom of speech in Washington,
DC. The two-hour production is part documentary, part dramatization of the events that surround
the death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky six years ago. Read more After Magnitsky: Dead
lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Magnitsky worked as an accountant for US-British investor William F. Browder, who made
millions in Russia during the 1990s, but was later accused of tax evasion and fled the country.
The lawyer was detained by the Russian police as part of a separate fraud investigation and
died in police custody in November 2009.
Browder claimed that Magnitsky had been investigating corrupt police officers and was thrown
into jail and murdered by them. He declared a crusade against what he called endemic corruption
in the Russian government and lobbied across Europe and the US for punishment of the
individuals whom he accused of involvement in Magnitsky's death.
In 2012 the US passed an act named after the Russian lawyer, which imposed sanctions against
40 Russian citizens – a move that Moscow saw as blatantly anti-Russian, and apparently
retaliated against by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by US citizens.
'Story of
coming together with lie, selfishness & cynicism'
Director Andrei Nekrasov struggled for months to have his controversial work shown to the
public. Scheduled screenings in three European venues, including the European Parliament, were
canceled because Browder threatened multimillion-dollar libel lawsuits against producers or
would-be broadcasters of the film.
Browder opposes the film because he believes it to be "a calculated attempt to harm our
campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," as he told
euobserver.com back in April.
Newseum was threatened in the same way, but rejected the pressure, saying that publishing
Nekrasov's film was an issue of freedom of speech.
"This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain,"
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who moderated the event, told the audience before the
screening.
Nekrasov says he wanted to make a docudrama film about Magnitsky ever since he heard of his
story. He received funding for the project from eight European film foundations and state
broadcasters and got in touch with Browder as part of his work.
But he found inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Browder's campaign to back his
story, saying most of it was circumstantial at best. When he confronted the businessman about
them, he said Browder broke off all contact and started to oppose the film.
The director believes that the narrative of Magnitsky as the brave whistleblower killed by
corrupt Russian cops, as it was accepted in the West, is a scam by Browder, who capitalized on
the lawyer's death to shield himself from all past and future accusations from Russian law
enforcement, which he could claim to be politically motivated.
" I believe Magnitsky died ," Nekrasov told journalists in response to a question
on whether he believed the lawyer was killed or died. " Questions remain, but the fact that
he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a
'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. "
"The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," Nekrasov told journalists as he
commented on revelations he made during the making of his film. "I saw facts that do not
add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," he added.
Documents show that the evidence presented by Browder as proof that Magnitsky was a
whistleblower was in fact a transcript of Magnitsky's interrogations, which were conducted
before he made his statements, Nekrasov claimed, stressing that police officers had no motive
for killing Magnitsky as he did not expose them.
"There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," the film
director told journalists.
"I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this
particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky
resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," Nekrasov said, adding that "it is
not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia."
"I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story
of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism,"
Nekrasov told RT in May, when the screening of the film was cancelled at the last moment in
Brussels.
The director's view didn't go well with some of the first viewers of the film, including
Russian opposition politicians and rights activists.
"You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," exclaimed Ilya Yashin, a
veteran opposition figure in Russia. "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live
with that."
The outcry was perhaps to be expected. Nekrasov himself has been a critic of the Russian
government for years. Some of his earlier works explored alleged involvement of the Kremlin in
very serious issues, including the Chechnya war, the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko, corruption
in security agencies and others.
His documentaries, both political and otherwise, were praised by critics and won a number of
awards, including the prestigious German Grimme-Preis award. Georgia named him person of the
year 2009 for a film about the 2008 war against Russia.
"I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation
to Browder and his friends," Nekrasov said of his latest film. "It goes against your
ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the
Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case
it was different."Where to
watchSchedule Subscribe to RT
newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won't tell you
I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him
as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the
U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was
the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill
against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and
individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.
At the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President
Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving
potential criminal cases involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators
from Washington and Moscow to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in
indictments prepared by the respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American
nomenklatura was that it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to
answer questions from Russians about their activities.
Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the
twelve recently indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in
order for Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities
for illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American
officials.
"... Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's 2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr. and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Those notes, apparently taken on Manafort's phone , are as follows. ..."
"... Offshore -- Cyprus ..."
"... Not invest -- loan ..."
"... Value in Cyprus as inter ..."
"... Active sponsors of RNC ..."
"... Browder hired Joanna Glover ..."
"... Tied into Cheney ..."
"... Russian adoption by American families ..."
"... In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice president Richard B. Cheney. ..."
Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a
one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's
2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr.
and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised
incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.
In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly
seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice
president Richard B. Cheney.
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please
click here ]
"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can
lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark
places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is."
― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"
In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge
fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the
past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his
presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised
me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir
Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This
time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent
read.
Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays
Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless
tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the
struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful
network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice.
It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.
I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days
after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a
number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about
it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of
William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I
finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.
My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this,
I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of
the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from
Communism to Capitalism and what
17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section
discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes
him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and
Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S.
Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the
Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.
As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first
few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star
review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder
team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression
comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.
On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of
the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled
"Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but
Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing
company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its
Kindle store.
CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory
content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr.
Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and
remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace
had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues."
In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether
it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer
offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to
write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no
response.
This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has
effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016,
Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind
the Scenes."
Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were
critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed
Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his
research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached
out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months.
Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get
clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the
cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed
until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading
Russian propaganda.
When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings.
With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of
the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even
managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of
Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of
Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of
expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to
be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.
No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be
sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.
Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of
different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open
debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at
constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into
consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to
silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed
debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing
elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful
defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a
bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at
evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all.
Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we
are allowed to know and what we are not.
In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his
battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and
most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.
This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation
that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack
Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story,
begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate
responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story
collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud
who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical
condition.
The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker
of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the
"trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his
project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation
to get at the truth .
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his
documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC
News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding
Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch
liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from
Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful
fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.
Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's
totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time
nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high
value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach,
the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must
admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have
refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP
China, or the Soviet Union.
Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be
exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability
– as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters
getting in the way of the state's own agenda).
There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he
denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's
death?
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm
Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination
would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI
would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit,
when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to
pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.
I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm
afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a
household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood
movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.
As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on
the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY
convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the
prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much
larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when
Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he
returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.
Parry's article
mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the
Norwegian production company.
This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking
for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given
a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get
this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal
would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and
usually happen later.
However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including
ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with
litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.
In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available,
unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that
claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same
Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.
I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film,
as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the
original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means
somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This
means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase
awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.
Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the
resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for
somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it
via a torrent.
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters)
in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
"... Look at the case, frequently discussed here, of British intelligence services and the fake rock , which had the guts of a Blackberry cellular telephone inside it, in Moscow. This 'rock' was strategically situated so that intelligence assets (you only call them 'traitors' if they are western citizens; Russians who betray their country are dissident heroes) could stroll past and flip messages to the rock, and every so often, British intelligence services could remotely extract it; the 'rock' only had to be touched to charge the batteries. ..."
"... But that was six years after the fact. For six years the British stonewalled and denied, and acted hurt that anyone would believe such an obvious Russian-bullshit story ..."
"... Tony Blair, for example, has never to the best of my knowledge admitted to having lied to influence public opinion in the UK in favour of committing with its partner, the United States, to the Iraq War, which was such a smorgasbord of lies that the weapons-of-mass-destruction whopper was only the biggest. Iraq was wrecked, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and the liars were never punished, nor ever in fact admitted their guilt. In cases where the guilty must begrudgingly admit they lied, nobody does anything about it, the firebolts of celestial retribution never appear, and the liars go on to lie some more with increased confidence. An eager and gullible audience is always ready to swallow some more horseshit. ..."
"... Like now, with the Skripal case. We are supposed to believe mysterious Russian assassins daubed Novichok nerve agent on the Skripals' front doorknob, which transferred to their hands, and then they drove downtown, enjoyed a good meal in a restaurant, and then started feeling poorly, and collapsed on a public bench, victims of a nerve agent much more toxic than VX. Five to eight times, says FOX News . ..."
"... But the Skripals did not die. They were carefully shielded and monitored by the British security services so that they could not be questioned by the public, but they did not die. ..."
"... Perhaps of greatest concern, if chemical-weapons professionals were aware that Novichok could persist in deadly concentrations for months – that it was specially engineered to be not only virtually undetectable by NATO sensors, but to remain deadly through the deleterious effects of the elements why did they say nothing when the dozy police assured the public that it was in absolutely no danger? ..."
"... This article is a timely reminder that the UK never stopped fighting the Cold War. I had forgotten about the embarrassing spy rock incident. The (labour) government lies were accepted without question by the media. ..."
"... The Novichok issue – fits into this pattern of behaviour. ..."
Uncle Volodya says, "Stupidity is the same as evil, if you judge by the results."
I've been waiting for something to happen for a day, or a week, or a year; with the blood in the ink of the headlines
and the roar of the crowd in my ears. You might ask what it takes to remember but you know that you've seen it before;
when a government lies to a people and a country is drifting to war
Jackson Browne, from "Lives in the Balance"
"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election."
Otto von Bismarck
During an hour or so of poring over quotes about lying (of course I don't make these up myself), before the snatch of lyric from
"Lives in the Balance" floated into my memory unbidden, I was struck as never before by the prevalence of belief in the
truth always coming out. Lyric after quote after stanza has it that you can lie and lie and lie, but eventually the truth will always
surface, and the liar will be caught.
Is that true? Was it ever true? Perhaps among the congenitally stupid, who labour simultaneously under their guilt and
a suspicion that smarter people (which is everybody else) can read minds; I'm reminded of a story which was set in the American southern
states, in which the probable perpetrator of some petty crime or other was brought into the rural sheriff's office for questioning.
He was told that he must take a lie-detector test. Accordingly, a metal colander, such as is used for washing salad ingredients,
was placed on his head, with wires from it leading to the photocopier. The deputies had put a piece of paper in the copier which
read, "He's Lying!!", and whenever they asked the suspect a question, they would press the 'print' button following the answer, and
out would come a paper which averred that the answer was a lie, which they would show to him. Eventually, confronted with his tapestry
of falsehoods and under the apprehension that he was being measured by other-worldly technology, he confessed. But the local law
enforcement was already well aware that he was guilty – they just wanted a confession.
So, perhaps in circumstances like that, in which the liar is a desperate fool, perhaps then the truth always comes out. But in
reality, not only does truth almost never come out, it only does when all possibility of further elaboration on existing lies has
been exhausted. But here's the real kicker – when the truth does come out, we are led by philosophers to believe that evangelical
vengeance will be swift to follow. Does that really happen? Perhaps after the liar is dead, he or she goes someplace featuring a
dancing-flames motif, where he or she is prodded the livelong day by imps with little pitchforks. But that sort of forestalls the
satisfaction of justice done in the here and now – punishment delayed is punishment denied, am I right?
Look at the case, frequently discussed here, of
British intelligence services and
the fake rock , which had the guts of a Blackberry cellular telephone inside it, in Moscow. This 'rock' was strategically situated
so that intelligence assets (you only call them 'traitors' if they are western citizens; Russians who betray their country are dissident
heroes) could stroll past and flip messages to the rock, and every so often, British intelligence services could remotely extract
it; the 'rock' only had to be touched to charge the batteries.
But that was six years after the fact. For six years the British stonewalled and denied, and acted hurt that anyone would believe
such an obvious Russian-bullshit story; the Foreign Office
scornfully retorted , "We are concerned and surprised
at these allegations. We reject any allegation of improper conduct in our dealing with Russian NGO's ." So receiving surreptitious
messages through a styrofoam rock is just the above-board, in-plain-sight honest dialogue in which foreign embassies everywhere engage;
why the outrage? And when Britain finally admitted what had been going on, minus all the holier-than-thou gilding of trying to build
a better world with Russia through an active and engaged civil society absolutely nothing was done. Not only does the truth not necessarily
ever come out – Tony Blair, for example, has never to the best of my knowledge admitted to having lied to influence public opinion
in the UK in favour of committing with its partner, the United States, to the Iraq War, which was such a smorgasbord of lies that
the weapons-of-mass-destruction whopper was only the biggest. Iraq was wrecked, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and
the liars were never punished, nor ever in fact admitted their guilt. In cases where the guilty must begrudgingly admit they lied,
nobody does anything about it, the firebolts of celestial retribution never appear, and the liars go on to lie some more with increased
confidence. An eager and gullible audience is always ready to swallow some more horseshit.
Like now, with the Skripal case. We are supposed to believe mysterious Russian assassins daubed Novichok nerve agent on the Skripals'
front doorknob, which transferred to their hands, and then they drove downtown, enjoyed a good meal in a restaurant, and then started
feeling poorly, and collapsed on a public bench, victims of a nerve agent much more toxic than VX. Five to eight times,
says FOX News . Ten times more deadly than its better-known predecessors, says Anne Applebaum. But the Skripals did not die.
They were carefully shielded and monitored by the British security services so that they could not be questioned by the public, but
they did not die.
And that's possible – in the case of a mild dose of, say, VX (much less deadly than Novichok, remember), as a liquid through a
skin-contact vector, it might take up to two hours for symptoms (local sweating and muscular twitching) to appear, according to the
US Army's Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center's
Reigle Report . The trouble with that scenario
as applied to the Skripals is that the duration of those effects would be about 3 days for a mild exposure, and 5 days for a severe
exposure. The Skripals showed no such effects; they ate dinner in what must have been to all appearances a normal fashion, and then
collapsed unconscious on a bench outside. Some accounts suggested they had a quantity of foam around their mouths, which might result
from salivation. At least one report says Yulia Skripal had vomited. No reports mentioned excessive sweating and muscular twitching,
both of which are hallmarks of nerve-agent poisoning via liquid (as opposed to gas) exposure through the skin.
There are a couple of other problems with the British approach. We've all seen the pictures of the chemical-warfare types in their
green dung-beetle suits, meticulously taking samples, while unprotected firemen in simple turnout gear with no masks or breathing
apparatus stood just a couple of feet away. VX as a liquid could become a gas, but it'd have to be pretty hot. If that happened,
it would not be persistent beyond a couple of hours. VX as a liquid, under very cold conditions, can actually persist for a couple
of months. Quite a bit colder than it typically is in even England, though, in spring and summer.
Daily averages for Salisbury, UK in March are
above freezing, an average of about 45F, and it customarily gets much warmer going into summer. So you can't have it both ways –
if it's a liquid, it's more persistent in its toxicity over time, but that effect is greatly attenuated by temperature. If it's a
gas, breathing apparatus for anyone who might be exposed is an absolute rule.
Another discrepancy came up, in
a timeline of the Skripals'
movements . They left the father's home at some time close to but prior to 1:30 PM, and drove into town. This, it is estimated,
would take about 10 to 15 minutes. They are observed by CCTV entering a multi-story car park in Salisbury at around 1:32 PM. Here
one of the Skripals – both of whom apparently touched the front doorknob on the way out, the second one perhaps just for luck – then
touched the ticket machine with their bare hand. This machine remained unchecked for 8 days after the event. How many other people
touched it between that time and the time anyone checked it for toxicity? Yet nobody else showed any symptoms.
It was an extremely oddball event, which continues to inspire skeptical questions and scornful refutations. But I don't want to
get too bogged-down in the Skripal affair – instead, I want to focus a bit on the more recent incident, the 'poisoning' of Dawn Sturgess
and Charles Rowley, in nearby Amesbury. This incident, also, has featured a wildly-improbable British-government narrative and skeptical
questioning, and one of the foremost skeptical questions has been "How the hell could a nerve agent that did not kill the people
who were its targets accidentally kill a chance victim four months later?"
Enter, stage left, the American Chemical Weapons Expert, who announces that
Novichok was specially engineered to remain persistent over a long time . So that it could, you know, kill incidental victims
months later and further incriminate the country where it is supposed to have originated. That's why it is the go-to poison for Russian
assassins. It might not kill the people you wanted to kill, but it could kill someone totally unrelated, months later. True story.
There are a few things you should know about the expert quoted, Dan Kaszeta. One, he's the Managing Director of
Strongpoint Security (it seems like all the UK's
go-to commentators are executives in the security industry, like FireEye or Crowdstrike). Sounding off in the media, taking a position
which unreservedly supports the government narrative – no matter how nutty it is – is a good way to get noticed in the security business,
and Strongpoint is a fairly new operation. Two, he's the
resident CBRN expert at Bellingcat . Three, he is not a Trump fan,
broadcasting for his anti-Trump audience
how the President of the United States' motorcade and security detail might be confused, frustrated and sidetracked so that he would
get the message he was not welcome. I can hardly fault Kaszeta for that, since Trump is over-the-top unpopular just about everywhere
he goes, but it's a little unusual to see a former White-House consultant handing out advice on how to screw up a White House visit.
Four, he is a much bigger noise on the CBRN front than you might have imagined if you've never heard of him before, confidently
chatting up the wide-eyed press corps on all things chemical-warfare. And always supporting the UK government's contention that Novichok
was always Russian, only Russian, and that it could not have been anyone else. Here he is,
letting the WBUR
Boston audience know in no uncertain terms, "I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia. They've
been a deep, dark secret." But their purported engineer, Vil Marzayanov,
claimed their precursors were
ordinary organophosphates which are commercially available; "One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors
of A-232 and its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture
fertilizers and pesticides [nerve agents, after all, arose from research into pesticides and are really advanced versions of
pesticides]. In my opinion, this research program was premised on the ability to hide the production of precursor chemicals under
the guise of legitimate commercial chemical production of agricultural chemicals . And if America was concerned that its manufacture
was devious and covert, it is kind of difficult to imagine why an American publisher
published a book which featured the
formula for making it, courtesy of Marzayanov, and which anyone can obtain for around $30.00. Is that how you keep something
a deep, dark secret? And obviously the Defense Research establishment at Porton Down, only a couple of miles from the site of the
Salisbury poisoning, had samples of Novichok, since they were able to identify it in a couple of hours. It's beginning to shape up
like the worst-kept deep dark secret in the world.
According to Dan, the Soviets wanted to engineer chemical agents that NATO equipment could not detect. Gosh! Those tricky sons
of bitches. So then they engineered it to be extra-persistent, so it would stay around for months, just to make it fair, so NATO
could have lots of time to take more samples. The thing is, the whole raison d'etre of a nerve agent is that it be non
-persistent; you want it to rapidly and efficiently kill off the enemy, but you want to move your own troops into that same
area in a matter of days, to consolidate your gains and establish your own military presence. Months just doesn't cut it.
Asked why an assassin would use such a distinctive agent, pointing straight back at his own country, Dan suggests that given the
historic secrecy of the project, someone might have reasoned that it would go undetected. Uh huh; sure – the Stimson Report came
out in 1995. And the agent used is 'specially engineered to remain a toxic menace for months'.
Here's Dan again , backstopping the White House's assertion that only Assad could have been behind an alleged sarin gas attack
at Khan Sheikhoun; the Russian version, he says, is "highly implausible". "Nerve agents are the result of a very expensive, exotic,
industrial chemical process -- these are not something you just whip up." Oh, dear – put John Gilbert, senior science fellow
at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in the "Disagree" column: he says
all you would need to make sarin
is about a 200 square-foot room and a competent chemist.
Two other attributes compound sarin's insidiousness. First, it's not especially hard to produce, in terms of both resources
and expertise. "A competent chemist could make it, and possibly very quickly, in a matter of days," says John Gilbert, a senior science
fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, who spent much of his Air Force career assessing countries' WMD capabilities.
Producing sarin doesn't require any kind of massive facility; a roughly 200 square foot room would do.
According to Dan
– yet again, this time in the Los Angeles Times – one form of Novichok is as a solid at normal temperatures, and it
might have been deployed as a dust or powder. Uh huh, might have been. But (a) that would have been the least-persistent method except
for as a gas, it would never have lasted four months outside, through rain, and (b) not even a rummy like Charles Rowley would have
tried to pawn off a bottle of dust to his girlfriend as perfume.
Because here we are again, at another 'Novichok' poisoning, and Dan helpfully dispels the myth that Novichok would not still be
around and deadly after four months, by announcing the Soviets specially engineered it to do just that. And not only that – they
made it especially for contaminating large areas of land, such as ports, and equipment, like tanks, so that they would be dangerous
for months. That was supposedly 'the idea' when they were developed.
Horseshit. Nerve agents are most effective against unprotected troops in the open, and if you want to contaminate an area the
size of a port, the only possible way you could do it would be with a spray – the least persistent form of all. All organophospate-based
nerve agents can be effectively dealt with – before unprotected personnel are exposed – by spraying and washing contaminated areas
with water; moisture makes them break down quickly. Nobody has engineered a miracle waterproof organophosphate nerve agent. Once
nerve agents are known to have been used, troops in the field are in TOPP (Threat-Oriented Protective Posture) Medium at least, in
full chem suits with breathing apparatus available for rapid donning. Nerve agents were not developed as a weapon of covert assassination,
although they have definitely been used in that role; they were developed as a weapon of mass destruction to be used against a military
adversary who presumably is trained in CBRN countermeasures. They were not developed to spray tanks, in the hope that some mook would
put his bare hand on it two months later, and fall over jerking and drooling. How the fuck would you disperse enough nerve agent
to contaminate an airfield? Fly over with a water-bomber and drench it from end to end? You don't think that might offer a bit of
a clue? If you want to disperse a large amount of nerve agent, it will have to be vaporized, and it will have to be carried in the
dispersal vehicle as a liquid. Liquids are heavy – the more you want to disperse, the bigger your dispersal vehicle will have to
be. The Soviet Union developed gas warheads, to be used on a ballistic missile, but if you can land a gas warhead next to an airfield
you might as well go the whole nine yards and blow it up, because a warhead that lies there hissing and dispersing a cloud of vapour
is kind of a giveaway. Unless, of course, you only want to kill the military personnel in the area, and not damage the airfield,
so you can quickly take it over and deploy your own aircraft from it. In which instance you would have been pretty stupid to envelope
it in a toxic nerve agent that is still going to be active next spring. And the whole idea of a nerve agent is to deploy a small
amount of it, using an unobtrusive dispersal vehicle, so as not to call attention to it until personnel in the target area are affected.
It's nice of Dan to try and fill in the blanks the way he did, but there are just too many blanks. The latest story from HM government
is that a perfume bottle was found in Charles Rowley's home, and tests revealed – surprise! – that it contained Novichok. The story
is that Rowley found it in Queen Elizabeth Park. Somehow, Dawn Sturgess is supposed to have sprayed the contents of the bottle on
her wrists and face, like perfume. Oops! now it's an aerosol, the fastest-acting form of nerve agent, and she probably would have
been affected in minutes at most, not hours. But she was not at Rowley's home, where the bottle was supposedly discovered. So he
either took the bottle with him to meet her, and after noticing her exhibiting symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning, took the bottle
home with him and put it in his house, or they were both affected at roughly the same time, and somebody thoughtfully posted the
bottle to his home address. If she was poisoned at his house, she would not likely have made it out.; remember, it was dispersed
as a vapor. So there is a question as to how the bottle got there, and another as to how it laid there in the park for nearly four
months, until Rowley discovered it.
And how it remained powerful enough to kill after all that time, when the fresh-off-the-shelf
Novichok, four months previously, failed to kill the Skripals. Not to mention how it got there in the first place – are we supposed
to believe that highly-trained assassins straight from the Kremlin did the Skripal job, and then tossed away their backup supply
in a local park?
Perhaps of greatest concern, if chemical-weapons professionals were aware that Novichok could persist in deadly concentrations
for months – that it was specially engineered to be not only virtually undetectable by NATO sensors, but to remain deadly through
the deleterious effects of the elements why did they say nothing when the dozy police assured the public that it was in absolutely
no danger?
Thanks, Al! Yes, Britain – like the USA – has a reliable stable of current and ex-military officers
to call upon whenever the broader public starts getting inquisitive or uncomfortable with the official storyline, to get us
back on the path with the uncompromising guarantee of military experience and exotic knowledge the average yokel can never
hope to possess.
General (Ret'd) Wesley Clark, for example, the affable and polished talking head for CNN during the Iraq War
and onetime presidential candidate.
Yes, the term CBRN replaced the old NBCD, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense.
This article is a timely reminder that the UK never stopped fighting the Cold War.
I had forgotten about the embarrassing spy rock incident. The (labour) government lies were accepted without question by the
media.
The Novichok issue – fits into this pattern of behaviour.
The story Browder refuses to tell is far more interesting than the one he wrote for the
book.
I found the book quite easy to put down: I got tired of all the chapters about how he made
so much money following the fall of the Soviet Union. But Norman Pearlstine's statement that
"Browder's business saga meshes well with the story of corruption and murder in Vladimir
Putin's Russia" is more true than he realizes. With the release of Glenn Simpson's 20 hours
of testimony before three Senate committees we now know that there is a great deal of
information Browder failed to disclose. I'll let Simpson tell it:
He was willing to, you know, hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and
cause them to launch a court case against somebody, but he wasn't interesting in speaking
under oath about, you know, why he did that ... All of this -- his determined effort to avoid
testifying under oath, including running away from subpoenas and changing -- frequently
changing lawyers and making lurid allegations against us, including that, you know, he
thought we were KGB assassins in the parking lot of Aspen, Colorado when we served the
subpoena, all raised questions
in my mind about why he was so determined to not have to answer questions under oath about
things that happened in Russia.
I'll add that, you know, I've done a lot of Russia reporting over the years. I originally
met William Browder back when I was a journalist at the Wall Street Journal when I was doing
stories about corruption in Russia. I think the first time I met him he lectured me about --
I was working on a story about Vladimir Putin corruption and he lectured me about how have
Vladimir Putin was not corrupt and how he was the best thing that ever
happened to Russia.
But returning to the detailed discussion of my work, we investigated William Browder's
business practices in Russia, we began to understand maybe what it was he didn't want to talk
about, and as we looked at that we then began to look at his decision to surrender his
American citizenship in 1998. At that point somewhere in there the Panama papers came out and
we discovered that he had incorporated shell companies offshore in the mid 1990s, in 1995 I
believe it was in the British Virgin Islands, and that at some point his hedge fund's shares
had been transferred to this offshore company. This offshore company was managed -- several
of his offshore companies were managed by the Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca,
which is known now for setting up offshore companies for drug kingpins, narcos, kleptos, you
name it. They were servicing every bad guy around. And I'm familiar with them from other
money laundering and corruption and tax evasion investigations that I've done.I'll note
parenthetically that William Browder talks a lot about the Panama papers and the Russians who
are in the Panama papers without ever mentioning that he's in the Panama papers.
Now, I choose to believe Simpson, who not only chose to submit to 20 hours of Senate
committee but then demand that it be made public, and not Browder, who fled from Simpson in
the parking lot of an Aspen resort, later claiming he thought Simpson was KBG.
This is not a book to be set aside lightly... in the words of Dorothy Parker. It has been
many years since I have read a book this bad. And many more since I finished one this bad. In
recent years I have been more able to simply give up on bad books, ignoring the sunk cost
fallacy that previously drove me to soldier on - perhaps it's an increasing awareness of the
value of time, but nowadays I will bail out when it is clear I've made a big mistake. But
this one was recommended by a friend whose taste I had no reason to doubt so I kept on,
chapter after gruelling chapter, hoping for some epiphany or quality uptick. Let me save you
from the same mistake.
One service this book does render, though, is to remind you, if you need it, that writing
is hard. You may be the world's most fabulous person (well, second most fabulous - the author
of this book is pretty clear about who occupies the top spot) but it don't make you a good
writer, see. So the first important thing to know is that Bill Browder cannot write. He
strings together cliches, name drops, humble brags (and regular brags too) but he can't
write. No matter; perhaps the content can make up for it? I'm sure there are plenty of books
where the content redeems the awful style, such as... well, I'm sure there are plenty. But
the second thing to know going in is that the story is a pretty tedious, linear tale of BB's
triumphs in the world of finance and then, as he calls it, "human rights". The problem, I
think, is that the tone of the book is very smug and, despite the occasional and obviously
cynical self-deprecation, deeply self-satisfied. The author has a real tin ear for his tone,
I think, and it's well illustrated by a very early part of the story. He arrives in Poland in
his first job, charged with the assessment and, hopefully, revival of a failing bus company.
He expresses his deep sorrow and pity for the poor, poor workers and wonders what he can do
to help. Meanwhile, he comes across a class of stocks in Poland that seem to him to be
ridiculously underpriced. Aha! thinks the naive reader - I know where this is going: he will
get the bus company to invest in these stocks ad save the day. But no! It turns out that
these narratives shall not meet: he buys the stocks himself and makes out like a bandit, and
he recommends that the bus company be shut down, throwing all the workers on the street. He
is very, very sorry about the latter, of course, but, on the other hand, he has discovered
his true calling as a value investor! Gaudeamus!
The author seems to have absolutely no appreciation of his role as a functionary in a very
particular social system and it makes all of his carefully laid out social conscience ring
hollow and renders his thoroughly documented tears crocodilian.
Both sides of this story are doing horrible things and the writer thinks what he did was
correct!
This is a story where the writer only criticizes the horrible things the russian goverment
did to him and how some oligarchs steal tax money (as everywhere but blatantly) but fails to
realize that what he did, purchasing people-owned companies at fractions of a penny on the
dollar and knowing it, while taking advantage of the imperfect systems put in place for the
distribution of those companies' wealth to the people of that country, as he perfectly
describes in this book, is also wrong in the first place. He fails to understand he actually
hurt the people of that country when he bought shares at a "steal" price as he writes, he
thinks he is doing the right thing because of his wall street mentality, no rules, prey on
whomever gives an opportunity. Sad, but it's the world we live in today
Browder's story seems like a complete scam. First, he personally profited to the tune of
$2 BN off the backs of the Russian people, taking advantage of inequities in the voucher
system used with the dissolution of the USSR. He never mentions how much he personally made,
as that would have cast too much reality on the sheer vanity, self-aggrandizement, and
sanctimonious rubbish that is the rest of the story. More pointedly, he does not speak to how
his money provided access to the highest levels of government, John McCain, and greased the
wheels of the European legal system. Take for example, his ability to miraculously get two
Interpol Red Notices removed within days of their placement. The Magnitsky case was terrible
but he clearly uses it as a sanctimonious shield to get public sympathy and protection. I
could go on but the bottom line is do not waste your time or money. Browder is one of the bad
guys- at best a delusional narcissist, or more likely a greedy scam artist, pulling the wool
over everyone's eyes.
After finishing Masha Gessen's "Man Without a Face" (insightful) Karen Dawisha's "Putin's
Kleptocracy" (a mind-boggling, devastating indictment of Putin and his cronies), and David
Hoffman's "Billion Dollar Spy" (reads like a thriller novel), I was hoping that Bill
Browder's book would provide some additional depth and an interesting perspective on the
thoroughly corrupt workings of post-Soviet Russia. It does not.
Like Browder, I went to Russia numerous times -- but didn't have an office there as he did
-- during the 90s and did a number of deals there. Unlike Browder, I speak the language and
know Russian business and legal culture quite well. (I'm an average American, born and raised
in Ohio, where I still live, but I do have a Russian wife, whom I met on one of my trips
there in the 1990s.)
Browder is an extremely unsympathetic figure: Although he doesn't admit to it in the book,
he was blinded by greed and arrogance to the point where he viewed his marriage and his son
as of only trivial importance compared to his mission in life to get rich. He went to Russia
to get something for nothing, thinking he was being shrewd. His utter ignorance of Russian
business and Russian culture permeate the book -- his condescending attitude is similar to
that of a British governor-general back in 1940s Iran, when the British role was limited to
exploiting Iran by grabbing its oil for a pittance while speaking contemptuously of the
locals. Browder contemptuously describes Russian attempts to reign him in: "Russians will
gladly -- gleefully even -- sacrifice their own success to screw their neighbor." Yet he is
oblivious to the fact that he himself, without any second thoughts, sacrificed his own family
for the prospect of making just one more deal, just one more deal, and then just one more
deal. American citizenship too was just another expendable in his all-consuming quest for
riches.
Russia in the 1990s was a sea of corruption, intrigue, mafia protection rackets, turf
battles, economic chaos, incompetence, and power grabs. Browder injected himself into it,
completely ignorant of what he was getting into, determined to take advantage. He got
burned.
"Red Notice" doesn't provide any perspective or depth; it isn't even particularly
interesting. Browder's narcisssm and self-justifications permate the book, making it
extremely unpleasant to read.
The author is, inter alia, wanted in Russia for tax fraud and so, obviously, will say
everything he can that is negative about Russia. His background and backers are also very
suspicious, to my mind anyway.
I found the book to be nothing but hype. This was confirmed when I read Alex Krainer's
"The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." This
excellent book - with factual content and well referenced - tears Browder to shreds. As he
deserves to be.
But the sheeple will continue to want to believe this fiction - it suits the current
american meme.
I recommend to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ...
The ' truth ' and the brainwashed herd of the sheeple. The death of the
Anglo-American-Zionist Empire. For those who think for themselves and cares for the others,
here in the USA ( former United States of America, now United Slaves of America ) and
all-over the World, for those of you in the research of ' whatreallyhappened ', I recommend
to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ) and read...R E A D INDEPENDENT
books and watch INDEPENDENT documentaries ! Books like ' The Killing of William Browder:
Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deceptions ' - NOT for sale on 'amazon.com' - WHY
???!!!...Documentaries like ' The Magnitsky act: Behind the Scenes ', produced by filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov ( a fierce critic of President Putin ).
Crook got his chances in Russia ----- HE IS A LIER!!!!
Complete Rubbish! Not only he concealed a lot of facts - he fabricated a lot of them. The
book is complete fiction, Why he doesnt mention that Magnitsky helped Hermitage create
schemes to avoid taxes, crate shell-companies to buy stocks of Gazprom (foreigners can not
buy Gazprom stocks), created shell companies in Cyprus and Kalmikia to pay joke taxes, hired
disabled people to again lower taxes? etc He is a joke
Mr. Browder went to Russian in the early 90s to make quick cash - he did it by buying
stocks from uneducated russians (similar to other russian oligarchs). Story of another greedy
individual who wanted to become a billionaire fast - once he had to pay the price he become
outraged by injustice of the system... XOXOXOXOXOX next time when you, Mr Browder, go to
another developing country with the intention to rob the system be prepared to take the
responsibility and do not whine about it like a little girl. A crook got upset that he didnt
make as much money as he wanted and got kicked out from the country - what a joke.
BTW - the youtube video with Mr. Browder running away from the officer who served him
subpoena is hilarious. If Mr Browder is so ethical and clean why he doesn't want to testify
in court?
This book came highly recommended to me by someone in the hedge fund industry. I was
surprised at how bad it was. I was looking into insight as to how Bill Browder, who once ran
the largest Russian hedge fund, made his fortune, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions
of dollars. Instead the book was a very self serving book which I would identify as 20% self
aggrandizement, self serving, 20% discussion of the arbitrage trades that made him rich, 60%
discussion of the Sergie Magnitsky Act which he worked to pass. The book is full of
contradictions including Browder's moral position and his self righteousness. It makes you
wonder if anyone thought about this book in context of the 2008 financial markets collapse or
did any research on Browder when reading it. Also, why does Browder today actively evade
subpoenas to testify about what happened in American court as shown in Youtube videos?
The book is full of villains on both sides. Browder is the grandson of the former head of
the US communist party. He gave up his US citizenship to become a British citizen in 1997. He
worked for the criminal Robert Maxwell who had misappropriated corporate pension funds to
live a flamboyant lifestyle, then he went to work with Edmond Safra as a partner in Hermitage
Capital. Not only these global speculators but the book includes Mossad and a host of Russian
oligarchs (all financed by Fred Goodwin's Royal Bank of Scotland). Browder's arbitrage was
that Russian companies were severely undervalued because no other investors trusted Russian
corporations and Russian rule of law. Whereas most other investors thought Russian companies
were 100% un-investable, Browder figured many of them were only 50% un-investable and he
invested in that 50% that was investable. After that arbitrage went away, he decided to start
investigating Russian corporations for inside dealing and his activist strategy paid off but
made many enemies. He was warned by numerous other investors that his life and others would
be in danger for this. Everyone he works with leaves wreckage behind until he does the same.
When one of his lawyers who gets less than 1% of coverage in the first half of the book dies
in a Russian prison, he goes all out to try to get revenge on the Russians who he claims made
tax fraud on the Russian government and him by seizing control of companies he owned. Many
questions arise from the book some of which I list below.
(1) Browder's hedge fund is domiciled in Guernsey and Cayman Islands, notorious tax
evasion locales, yet the premise of the second half of the book is to get revenge on corrupt
Russian officials for stealing Russian tax money (his hundreds of millions of dollars)
(2) Browder is drawn to evil people and shady characters (Maxwell, oligarch companies,
mossad, etc) like moths to a flame. Is it force of habit for him to fall into bad situations
with them? Is it the US government's role to spend taxpayer money on exacting revenge for him
on the crooked crowd he deals with? His friends are spoken with in great superlatives, his
enemies despised. It is easy to imagine if you were a friend and became an enemy he would
label you with epithets thus immediately.
(3) Browder becomes a British citizen (but a hedge fund deci or centi millionaire) yet he
easily gets access to John McCain, Joe Lieberman and other US elected officials to get the
Magnitsky act passed. Ultimately the Magnitsky act passes and Russia responds by banning all
US adoptions of Russian children. For all you childless women looking to adopt Russian
babies, thank the egotist Browder for your inability to do so going forward. Were you screwed
in the 2008 financial markets collapse? The system may not work for you but it works for a
global speculator who wants vengeance.
(4) But its worse. Browder goes to war with the Oligarchs who were funded by Royal Bank of
Scotland and who defaulted on their loans from RBS. The UK citizens had to bail out RBS.
Browder tries to utilize the British government to exact vengeance on the very same Oligarchs
the British government is bailing out in some ways.
(5) Browder is the great example of the speculative hedge fund trader of the 90's and 00's
run amok. He is a speculator, he was warned about the risks, he jumps headlong into them and
knows Russia does not have American or British rule of law. But he expects the US and Britain
to jump to his aid for his recklessness and bail him out like the other crooks of the 2008
vintage. EVEN THOUGH HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN.
(6) Lookup the Wall Street Journal articles or Youtube videos about how the cowardly Browder
runs away from being served by a subpoena and has constantly sought to avoid subpoena's from
the Russians who are countersuing him in US and British court. If he is for rule of law, why
not work his way through the legal systems. Seems like there is another side to the
story.
Hey, guys and gals, the man is a shark. An investment banker. He'd sell his own
grandmother if he thought he's make a profit. And now he's trying to profit by selling his
own story, all teary-eyed about his lawyer and his quest for "justice." Barf. He wants to
expose Kremlin corruption, happily forgetting Wall St. corruption that he hoped would make
HIM millions. He only saw the light when other folks made millions and he got arrested. Kinda
like any low-life Baltimore drug pusher. Please don't buy his line of crack cocaine.
This is a thrilling page-turner of financial and political intrigue. The problem is that
it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Just about everything of which Browder
accuses the Russian kleptocrats is equaled or excelled by the US robber barons and the
agencies of violence wielded by the US government. Browder also digresses from time to time
into the history of the USSR about which he knows nothing except the propaganda that we have
been fed, most of which originates, ironically enough, from the very oligarchs he so
justifiably criticizes.
Very interesting to hear an insider's experience of Russia privatization and the politics
of the 90's and early 2000s. I enjoyed that part.
That said, I found Browder spent a lot of time tooting his own horn and virtue signaling . He
seemed quite impressed with himself and spends much of the book detailing why you should be
too.
I never thought Putin was a good guy.
I never thought neocon/ deep state John McCain was a good guy. ( Browder does).
I don't think Browder made his gazillions by being a good guy. A lot of ordinary Russians got
ripped off . Browder and a lot of others got rich.
This is a fairly interesting, if pretty unsurprising, story of high-level graft and
corruption in Russia. Yes, Putin and the Russian government are rife with corruption, and the
rules are subject to change on a whim. That should be obvious to anyone who paid any
attention to Russia's preparation for the Sochi Olympics. I'm even inclined to take Browder's
story about the torture and eventual death of Sergei Magnitsky (who he describes as a tax
lawyer, but was actually an accountant) at face value.
But where Browder really grates is with his remarkable lack of self-awareness and
out-of-touch declarations. At one point, for instance, in the run-up to the 1996 elections,
in which there was a chance that the Communist candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, would win the
presidency and potentially re-nationalize state companies, Browder said that he could deal
with food shortages, hyperinflation, or any number of terrible conditions, but what he
couldn't stomach was re-nationalization of industry. So, according to this guy, people
starving and their savings evaporating into thin air is tolerable, but the worst thing
imaginable is him losing his gains from fleecing Russian peasants. Solid guy, Browder.
For some background-- when the USSR fell, Russia embarked on a program of "voucher
privatization" where every citizen received vouchers that they could use to bid on the shares
of previously state-owned enterprises. Since Russia has incredible resource wealth, these
were quite valuable. Unfortunately, in a country with no history of any kind of capital
markets, the overwhelming majority of people had no clue what use they could get out of stock
ownership. Immediately after they were issued, you could buy a voucher for a bottle of cheap
vodka. And the people who became the oligarchs, as well as western vultures like Browder, did
just that. Eventually, these shares sold at incredibly low valuations, and investors made a
killing. But what Browder doesn't mention is that these absurdly low valuations almost
certainly came about, in large part, from the fact that investors hate uncertainty. The
possibility that a Zyuganov would come to power and re-nationalize state-owned enterprises
was a real possibility, so plenty of investors stayed on the sidelines. Not Browder-- he
jumped in, and when (surprise!) the Russian government behaved like the Russian government is
wont to do, he acted like he was the victim of the world's worst injustice. Sure, what
happened was in some way unfair. So was all the vultures jumping in to take advantage of
peasants. Browder had no problem ripping off Russian peasants while extolling himself as a
"great capitalist," but, when the Russian government took him in, he complained about the big
bad Russians. It was extremely tiresome.
There were other places where his tone was equally annoying. He spent time talking about
how "sexy" his second wife was/is, how she's "not like those other Russian girls that are
just after money," and how many other people wanted to date her and how awesome he was
because she chose him. Sergei Magnitsky's death is a sad story from a sad place. It's too bad
the person to tell it is such a wildly out of touch hypocrite.
The book was fun to read, like a Marvel comic book. Truly Bill Browder is, according to
Bill Browder, a brilliant man willing to take daring risks where he sees an opportunity for
personal gain. And I have to agree with him. With his inherited genetic intelligence, and
some of the best education money can buy, he made himself enormously rich profiting from
financial transactions that produced nothing of real value. I found this book to be quite
self-congratulatory, written with no embarrassment for taking advantage of a whole
population.
As Browder writes, "I found that to transition from communism to capitalism, the Russian
government had decided to give away most of the state's property to the people. The
government was going about this in a number of ways, but the most interesting was something
called voucher privatization. The government granted one privatization certificate to every
Russian citizen---roughly 150 million people in total -- and taken together these were
exchangeable for 30 % of nearly all Russian companies." "The market price of the vouchers
equaled 3 billion this meant that the valuation of the entire Russian economy was only 10
billion! That was one-sixth the value of Wal-Mart!" "Russia had 24% of the word's natural
gas, 9% of the world's oil, and produced 6.6 % of the world's steel, among many other things.
Yet this incredible trove of resources [owned by ordinary Russian citizens] was trading for a
mere 10 billion! Even more astonishing was that there were no restrictions on who could
purchase these vouchers. I could buy them, anyone could buy them." He recounts, "The Russian
people had no idea what to do with the vouchers when they received them for free from the
state and, in most cases, were happy to trade them for a $7 bottle of vodka or a few slabs of
pork." Mr. Browder took advantage of their ignorance and brought millions of vouchers from
the Russian people for a pittance of their true value. This is something to brag about? It is
not laudable to buy something for a pittance of its real worth, from owners who have no idea
of its true value. It is reprehensible. It was disturbing to me to see no introspection on
the rightness or wrongness of beating someone out of his or her money.
Mr. Browder describes in his Sidanco deal the feeling he has when an opportunity for ungodly
gains presents itself, "I had that tingling, greedy tension in my gut, similar to when I saw
my $2,000 Polish investment multiply by nearly ten times, or when I unearthed the Russian
voucher scheme."
Greed is not a virtue, Mr. Browder. It is a vice.
Reviewer Ian Kaplan wrote:
The second half of the book is about how Putin's gang tried to crush Hermitage Capital and
everyone associated with it."
And, I would add, how Browder's gang is trying to crush Putin.
It makes me think that a large part of Mr. Browder's dogged determination in pushing the
Maginsky Act through Congress, and signed into law, was not so much a humanitarian turn of
the leaf for him, but a strategy to enlist the whole backing of the United States into his
personal war with Putin, who put him out of a lucrative business in Russia.
I was familiar with Hermitage and Browder so it was not "news" to me. I feel Browder makes
himself look good when in reality he was a jerk.
I don't wish him well!
Bill Schaffer
Bill Browder is a shrewd fellow, at least up to a point. He saw an opportunity to make
money after the collapse of Communism in Russia. He moved to Moscow, started a hedge fund,
and succeeded in a big way. He made piles of money in essentially the same way the Russian
oligarchy made it, by purchasing formerly state owned assets at hugely discounted rates.
It all worked beautifully for a while, but clever as he was Browder didn't realize he was
living in a fool's paradise. Rather than remaining cool and quiet while making money, he
publicly accused certain local enterprises of corruption. He did this, rather naively, in a
country notoriously resentful of foreign interference in its affairs. Furthermore, there are
indications that he himself was not above involvement in dodgy dealings, including fudging on
taxes and sneaking funds into tax havens.
Not surprisingly, Browder, away on a trip, was barred from reentering Russia. Authorities
raided his Moscow offices, confiscating files and computers. Although Browder managed to get
his staff out of Russia, a man named Sergei Magnitsky whom Browder calls his lawyer, though
he was apparently only an auditor, chose not to leave. This was a grave error, as poor
Magnitsky became the foil for Russian displeasure with Browder. He was jailed, beaten, denied
medical treatment, and died in prison. Meanwhile, a couple of thugs attached to the KGB,
Russia's secret police, extorted large sums of money from Browder via a complex fraud,
presumably accomplished with the tacit consent of establishment superiors.
Browder used Magnitsky's death to launch a major and eventually successful lobbying
campaign for a U.S. law which came to be known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposing
sanctions on Russian officials responsible for Magnitsky's death. The Russians retaliated by
placing Browder on the Interpol wanted list and later sentencing him in absentia to nine
years in prison for tax fraud.
"Red Notice" is written in the fashionably breezy and colloquial style seemingly favored
by many professional ghost writers. Not surprisingly, it portrays Browder as a skilled and
principled financier who, prompted by the Magnitsky tragedy, turns himself into a towering
figure in the world of human rights.
There are odd omissions in descriptions of Browder's family life. Divorce from his first
wife is mentioned only in passing; although much ado is made over his meeting his glamorous
Russian second wife, she fades entirely from later portions of the manuscript. "Red Notice"
is a work of considerable interest. However, given the many controversies that hover over
Browder's life and reputation, I believe it wise to view its contents with a generous degree
of skepticism.
Other reviewers have accurately summarized the book, and justly praised Browder's
commitment and courage in seeking a measure of justice for the brutal treatment, leading to
death, of Sergei Magnitsky. My comment will focus on a disquieting subtext babout browder's
activities in setting up and running his hedge fund.
Browder's rise to prominence with his Hermitage Fund followed the classic MBA playbook:
find and exploit undervaluation. Fair enough in a financial world of transparency and
disclosure where "consenting adults" can presumably fend for themselves. But this was not
exactly the environment in Russia in the early 1990s. In its attempted transition from
communism to some form of capitalism, the Russian government granted "privatization
certificates" to the people - one certificate per citizen, about 150 million in total.
Browder found that these certificates, in the aggregate, were exchangeable for about a 30
percent interest in newly privatized Russian companies.
In theory, this should have been a promising financial arrangement for the impoverished
Russian people, particularly given the country's wealth of natural resources and the
p[otential of its energy sector. But after decades of communism, capitalism was a largely
unknown concept in day-to-day practice. Controlling interests were diverted to a
well-connected oligarchical minority, who saw the companies more as ATMs rather than what we
in the West would call modern corporations with appropriate disclosure and governance
standards. Companies were valued at a tiny fraction of comparable Western entities, and the
Russian stock market, such as it was, had little volume and virtually no transparency.
Browder had the insight to realize that the participation certificates were ludicrously
undervalued in relation to the potential net worth of Russian companies. By purchasing large
numbers of these certificates from the essentially clueless Russian citizenry for the
functional equivalent of pennies on the dollar in relation to underlying value, Browder was
able to position his Hermitage Fund to get in on the ground floor of a stock market that was
virtually certain to rise dramatically as the potential of the Russian economy came to be
understood in the Western world.
Depending on one's perspective, this is either an instance of brilliant, if amoral,
take-the-world-as-it-is MBA-ism, or a classic example of a city slicker fleecing the rubes in
a manner that would be much more difficult to pull off in a more sophisticated financial
environment. I lean toward the latter position, and surely am not the only one dazed by the
irony of Browder, grandson of a one-time head of the U.S. Communist Party, so
unapologetically exploiting the ignorance of the Russian populace for capitalist gain.
Browder deserves all the kudos he's received for his work on the Magnitsky matter. But his
Hermitage Fund (and its progeny and imitators) helped give visibility (though not
transparency) and liquidity, as well as an aura of respectability, to the previously
"undernourished" Russian stock market. Browder's investors did well, as did numbers of
average Russians (though not necessarily those who sold the participation certificates).
Principal beneficiaries, however, were the oligarchs and the well-connected favored few, the
value of whose controlling interests soared greatly. In part, Browder was an enabler of the
system he came (rightly) to despise and fight against.
It seems Browder is trying to whitewash his own reputation and the part he played in the
disasterous privitazation of Russian businesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He
was an active and avid participant in buying up shares of companies for pennies on the dollar
which helped to impoverish Russians for a generation. In addition his part in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky was shameful. Yes Browder and Magnitsky uncoverd massive fraud but
ultimately Browder decided that the money was more important than his "friend's" life.
Passige of the Magnitsky Law slightly punished the perpetrators but he didn't need to die and
Browder should be ashamed of himself as well.
A must read, regardless of political party of choice. A book that could save America,
literaly
Well written, stringently researched and truly shines a light on the dark dealings of Bill
Browder. Seamlessly disects the chapters of Bill browders book red notice bit by bit.
Everyone should read this book.
Russian
businessman Aleksandr Perepelichny, a key witness in the Sergey Magnitsky case who died in
southern England in November 2012, may have been poisoned, British media reported. Perepelichny
allegedly cooperated with Swiss investigators looking into the death of Sergey Magnitsky and a
$240 million money laundering case, involving Russian officials and organized crime.
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer, who was held in pre-trial detention in connection with tax
fraud, and died in 2009 due to being denied crucial medical treatment by prison officials.
His death caused an international outcry and led to the passing of the so-called Magnitsky
Act by the US Congress in 2012, which punished a group of Russian state officials and law
enforcers with a US asset freeze and a visa ban over alleged human rights violations.
Shortly before testifying in the Magnitsky case, Perepelichny collapsed and died while jogging near
his home near in Surrey, south of London.
The Surrey police initially found nothing suspicious about the 44-year-old man's death,
saying that there was "no third-party involvement."
However, a pre-inquest hearing Monday has shed light on new facts in the case, which
contradicted the initial conclusions by the police.
A top poisons expert examined a sample of Perepilichny's stomach contents last year and
discovered the presence of a chemical strongly associated with a lethal plant toxin, the
Independent newspaper reported.
Professor Monique Simmonds from Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, London, told the court that
the substance was extremely rare in nature and could only be obtained from gelsemium, a
poisonous plant also known as "heartbreak grass."
The plant only grows in remote areas in Russia and China, and became known as a poison used
by assassins in the two countries.
However, it isn't used very often. The most recent known use of gelsemium as a poison was
the assassination of Chinese billionaire Huang Guang in 2011.
Lawyers representing the police at Surrey Coroner's Court in Woking acknowledged that the
presence of the chemical "ion" in Perepilichny's system was a "cause for very
serious concern," the Independent reported.
The new finding prompted the judge to reschedule a hearing in Perepilichny's case, due to
begin Monday, until September as to allow more tests to be performed.
According to the Independent, the Surrey police may find themselves in hot water for
negligence if Perepilichny's poisoning is confirmed, as the case would resemble the
high-profile murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko in London in 2006.
Litvinenko, a former Russian security officer, died in hospital after being poisoned with
radioactive Polonium 210, with his death acting as a stumbling block in relations between
Russia and the UK.
A
documentary screening of Andrei Nekrasov's investigation comes to a halt due to
behind-the-scenes schemes of an American billionaire.
Nekrasov (c) in a scene from his new film (Photo: greens-efa.eu)
Originally appeared at Rusplt , translated by
Mona Lita exclusively for SouthFront
Seems like the world has turned upside down. After decades of living under the conditions of
censorship, Russia has generated an unprecedented desire for freedom. Europe, by contrast, is
increasingly resorting to banning facts that are inconvenient for her. Myths that benefit
politicians of the Old World are claimed as truth, while all the rest is, for example, Russian
"propaganda". On this basis the obstacles to Mass Media activities are being fixed, while
access to individual documentaries is being cut off from the viewer. One of these types of
works is a film "the Magnitsky Act – behind the scenes", made by a Russian director
Andrei Nekrasov, which is dedicated to a famous story about tax evasion, which later becomes
the reason for the adoption of the American law with the same name.
Another screening of Nekrasov's film was to be held today, on May 27th as one of the short
films at a festival in Grimstad, Norway [ SF editor: It wasn't screened]. Whether it will
happen or not is not yet clear. The fact is that the film's authors now have a powerful
opponent, an American billionaire and CEO of Hermitage Capital – William Browder, an
author of the Sergei Magnitsky myth and his self-proclaimed political executor. Unhappy with
Nekrasov's investigation, in which a version of an innocent businessman is being refuted,
Browder launched an opposition campaign. He is not hesitating to use a whole arsenal of tools
for this: direct political pressure, defender assaults and prosecution. A Norwegian publication
Dagbladet writes about this.
According to the publication, for the sake of counteracting the film's circulation Browden
held separate meetings with the Storting parliament members – Ingerd Skou from the
"Høyre" Party and Morten Wold from the Progress Party. Both of them are also members of
the Storting delegation in PACE, and this means they have European-scale influence. Moreover,
Browder met with the leader of the Norwegian Party Venstre, Trine Skei Grande. In respect to
Nekrasov's film the policy is set to be very critical, calling it propaganda. "Everyone knows
that Russia is a master at conducting such campaigns", a publication quotes her words. It turns
out she has not seen the film itself but believes in Browder's version.
In addition to politicians' support, Browder – an American with a British passport,
enlisted the sympathy of human rights activists. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is entirely
on his side. A corresponding meeting took place during the visit of this country's
businessman.
A sacrifice is required for human rights activists to exist. Magnitsky is the suitable
candidate. Death in a Russian prison makes him a desirable target to human rights fanatics. In
case this resource is not enough, Browder prepared a court appeal. "I have hired Norwegian
attorneys. They have been ordered to take up the case", he explained to Dagbladet. Browder
wants to sue not only the film director but also the film festival in Grimstad, if he did not
remove the film from screening.
Right now, the festival organizers are resisting. According to the Executive Director Anita
Svingen, they will refuse the showing of Nekrasov investigation only if the creators themselves
will withdraw the film for legal reasons. Despite Browder's threats to sue the festival, its
organizers invited him to a discussion that will take place after the viewing. They recalled
that it was a Norwegian company that created the film, which guarantees him a sufficient level
of confidence.
It should be noted that funding for Nekrasov's work is also European. The film received
millions of krones from the Nordic Film and TV Fond, the Norwegian Film Institute (NFI), Norsk
Film Institute and the Foundation Fritt Ord ("Free Word"). If those politicians who oppose the
showing are outraged by this circumstance, then the Representative of NFI Mette Taraldsen
reasonably noted that the very "form and task of documentaries is to raise critical questions
and to cover the case from different angles". At the same time he also reminded that Andrei
Nekrasov is one of the most experienced documentarians, and it makes no sense not to trust
him.
Europe is afraid of free speech?
In fact, the Russian director is considered one of the masters in European documentary
films. A partnership with Andrei Tarkovsky, training in Bristol and work on the British
television network allowed him to sustain a professional status. His work has received numerous
awards, including one at the Cannes Film Festival. An important factor in Nekrasov's reputation
is that he is the current Russian president's enemy. Accusations that he "sold out" to the
Kremlin obviously have no ground to stand on. "I used to make films that were quite critical of
Putin, and such allegations hurt me deeply", he said.
When Nekrasov first began shooting the film, he implicitly believed in Browder's version.
After all, all the major Western media consistently wrote and spoke about it with one voice.
The adaptation of the story "about the conspiracy of Russian policemen killing the fighter of
Magnitsky corruption" was assumed. It was only during the process of filming, when the director
was introduced to the documents that he realized he was filming a lie. The version of the story
that Browder circulated has little to do with reality, but rather serves the businessman's
personal interests. This explains the powerful complex program to counter the film's showing
and threats with multi-million dollar lawsuits to anyone involved in its spread. It's just that
Browder's pride was hurt.
The first documents Nekrasov learned of were from Browder's famous site "the Untouchables",
where Magnitsky exposes the corruption of investigators Karpov and Kuznetsov. As it turns out,
there was no exposure. "There was an interrogation, and there was protocol, which shows that
Magnitsky is in the midst of a heavy defensive struggle with the investigation. And he is not
blaming any MIA officers, and doesn't even mention them", writes Nekrasov in his blog on the
website "Echo of Moscow". "Since then (Fall of 2014) my "based on a true story" film began
ripping at the seams. Each day I was more certain that it was based on a lie".
As a result, the director developed his own version of events that was built as a result of
personally studying all sources. According to Nekrasov, Magnitsky was not an auditor but an
accountant who was arrested for tax fraud. He died in prison not because of beatings or other
illegal pressures but as a result of a fatal deterioration of health caused by being confined.
Browder, as a political attack on Russia used his tragic death in retaliation for his expulsion
from the country in 2005 and termination of business. And this is how his interests coincided
the U.S. foreign policy objectives: it is how the "Magnitsky Act" was born, the effect of which
has recently spread globally. The main thing that Nekrasov understood was that Magnitsky was
not murdered and has not pressed charges against the investigators.
It is not surprising that Browder was so ready to actively oppose the showing of Nekrasov's
film. Forces all too powerful are drawn into the story. The previous film showing in the
European Parliament that was scheduled for April 27th, and it too met resistance and was
cancelled. The organizers received a letter with threats from Browder and were unable to
withstand pressure. A member of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala particularly mentioned
this. She called the pressure "sudden and strong". The fact that the premier of this film was
so easily removed from a scheduled screening in the European Parliament shows that the right to
the freedom of speech is offered only to one side", said the film's screening organizer Natalia
Veselnitskaya.
A near future will show how another attack of this unscrupulous billionaire will end. Nekrasov
himself seems to hope for the best, and that the Europeans will still see his honest
investigation and will draw conclusions. "An 'Oscar' is not necessary. But we will see the
idols fall", said the director.
This documentary caused an uproar in Russia when it appeared in April of 2016.
This film was made by the main Russian government news broadcasting company, Rossiya 1.
It alleges that Bill Browder, the legendary American hedge fund manager who from 1995 - 2005
was the largest foreign investor in Russia, controlling billions of $ and a significant share
of Russia's leading companies, was in fact a CIA front.
At one point his funds owned 7% of Gazprom, using what the film argues were illegal schemes
to acquire shares
The film argues that Browder's whole involvement with Russia was a CIA operation to disrupt
Russia politically and economically
It alleges that in 2006, Browder was instructed by the CIA to provide financial support to the
rising opposition politician, Alexei Navalny, and that the two then closely cooperated for the
next 5 years.
As evidence, the film cites hacked CIA email and skype correspondence which it claims fell
into Russian hands during the government upheaval in Kiev in 2014.
When the film appeared, Browder and Navalny charged that the evidence was faked, and Navalny
sued Rossiya 1 for libel. As of the translation of this video, (July 2016), the suit has not
been concluded.
Browder was expelled from Russia in 2006, after which he led a highly successful public
campaign criticizing Russia and Putin. The film argues that the campaign was financed by the
CIA.
The campaign demanded sanctions against Russia for what Browder alleged was the murder of
one of his employees, Sergei Magnitsky, and theft from his companies, by corrupt Russian
officials.
His campaign resulted in the famous "Magnitsky Act" sanctions against Russia, passed by
Congress in 2012.
The film alleges that this cynically misrepresents the facts. It alleges that Magnitsky
ended up in jail for carrying out major fraud for Browder, and that he was on the verge of
testifying against Browder when he died. It cites the hacked CIA mail as evidence that the CIA
managed to orchestrate Magnitsky's death in prison.
The film argues that the only people with a motive for Magnitsky's death were Browder and
the CIA, because his testimony about the tax fraud would have been devastating.
The film includes embarrassing details of tax avoidance schemes used by Browder and
Magnitsky, including hiring barely literate invalids in remote corners of Russia as fake
executives in order to receive tax breaks amounting to 100s of millions of $.
The film then alleges, again citing the hacked CIA correspondence, that in 2010 Browder paid
Navalny $300,000 to conduct a PR campaign in Russia in support of the Magnitsky Act.
This documentary was never aired separately, rather appeared as a segment within the April
13, 2016 episode of the popular Russian political talk show "Spetsialnii Korrespondent"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAkt...
The episode consisted of an emotional 1.5 hour discussion of the film, with several people
who appeared in the film present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZ3...
(only in Russian)
Of the 10-plus guests, all but one, an American journalist, argued heatedly that Browder had
clearly committed gross financial crimes and agreed with the film.
The comment leading into the beginning of the film is typical of the tone of the talk show,
where the Deputy Chairman of Russia's parliament compares Browder to an "intestinal
tapeworm".
At the conclusion of the film, the talk show guests discussed the film for a further 1.5
hours. About half of the guests were also featured in the film, and they were able to go into
much more detail about their knowledge of the Browder case.
The discussion became very emotional, with some guests shouting about what they alleged are
Browder's crimes.
In April 2016, the head of Russia's powerful Investigative Committee instructed his
subordinates to examine the potential " complicity " of U.S.-born British businessman William
Browder -- once Russia's largest portfolio investor -- in the "murder" of his former employee,
Sergei Magnitsky.
It was a bizarre twist in the saga of Magnitsky, whose 2009 death in a Moscow jail resulted
in a 2012 U.S. law bearing his name that slaps sanctions on Russians deemed to be human rights
abusers. Browder vigorously lobbied for the law, arguing that Magnitsky was tortured and denied
medical treatment for blowing the whistle on a massive tax fraud allegedly involving Russian
law enforcement and tax officials.
Russia, which says Magnitsky's death was a tragedy but denies allegations that he was abused
while in custody, has undertaken an aggressive, multipronged effort in recent years aimed at
discrediting Browder and the narrative underpinning the U.S. Magnitsky Act.
The law was said to be at the
center of a meeting between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., and other confidants of
U.S. President Donald Trump at a controversial meeting in New York in June 2016.
Investigative Committee chief Aleksander Bastrykin's call last year to probe allegations of
Browder's possible role in Magnitsky's death was explicitly linked to a documentary on Russian
state TV that alleged a byzantine conspiracy between Browder, British intelligence, and Russian
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny.
But for 18 months, it was unclear if this probe had gone anywhere.
According to an October
22 report by The New York Times, however, Russian authorities are indeed pursuing a
possible murder charge against Browder -- and citing evidence that parrots widely mocked claims
presented in the documentary broadcast on Rossia-1 television a day prior to the Investigative
Committee's announcement.
Citing documents obtained from a court docket by a lawyer for Magnitsky's family, the Times
reported that Russian prosecutors allege Browder colluded with a representative of Britain's
MI6 to convince doctors to withhold medical care to "cause the death of S.L. Magnitsky" while
he was in custody.
RFE/RL reached out to Browder, who said he was not immediately able to provide a copy of the
documents in question.
Prosecutors, according to the Times report, also cite alleged intercepts of intelligence
communications and suggest the goal of the purported plot was to start "a significant news
trigger to discredit" Russia.
They also cite claims made in the Rossia-1 documentary, including that Browder was in
cahoots with Navalny in a purported secret operation titled "Quake" -- with Browder supposedly
using the code name "Solomon" and Navalny using the moniker "Freedom."
Clumsy Fakes
The documentary featured scans of alleged secret U.S. and British documents concerning
Browder, Navalny, and Magnitsky that were widely ridiculed as crude fakes based on their clumsy
syntax and grammatical mistakes -- including improper use of English indefinite and definite
articles that often stymie native Russian speakers.
The claims by Russian prosecutors, as reported by the Times, echo one alleged CIA document
from 2009 shown in the Rossia-1 program with the awkward subject line: "Report on the health
status of a Sergei Magnitsky."
The document purports that Browder ("Agent Solomon") "was offered by proxies in the Russian
Federal Penitentiary Service to arrange the termination of any medical services for
Magnitsky...which could lead to his death."
That document is signed by "V. Plame" -- an apparent reference to former CIA covert officer
Valerie Plame, who was exposed by officials in the administration of President Georgia W. Bush
after her husband criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Plame on Twitter called the document, purportedly from 2009, " such nonsense " and noted that
she left the CIA in 2007.
The Russian Investigative Committee did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment on The New
York Times report, and officials there could not immediately be reached by telephone.
The report was published just days after Canada on October 19 passed its version of the
Magnitsky Act, a move that Russian President Vladimir Putin called " unconstructive
political games ."
Browder U.S. Travel Blocked?
Browder, meanwhile, is claiming that Russia has placed him on an Interpol list, and that his
U.S. "global entry status" -- which can expedite entry to the
United States -- has been revoked by U.S. officials, The Guardian reported.
Interpol has previously refused to place the investor, whom Russia convicted in absentia on
tax-evasion charges in 2013, on an international wanted list at Moscow's request.
The Guardian reported over the weekend that
Russia had used a loophole allowing governments to place individuals on the Interpol
database unilaterally.
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an e-mailed statement that
Browder's visa waiver had been "manually approved" on October 18, though Browder told the
Associated Press that he had been informed by U.S. authorities of his rejection on October
19.
Browder said on Twitter late on October 23 that his waiver had been " restored " and that he has
"successfully checked into a U.S. flight."
It took place in New York on Feb 3, 2015, when marshals from the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan tried to serve him a subpoena to give evidence as part of the only trial thus far on
US soil proceeding from the Magnitsky Act. (The details of that case can be found
here .) The reason for Mr. Browder's nervous behavior is obvious: his arguments served only
political aims and were intended for cases in which the verdict is known from the beginning.
But none of his claims could stand up to scrutiny by any experienced lawyer once real business
interests were at stake, and this is exactly what happened with Mark Cymrot from BakerHostetler
during Browder's court deposition on Apr 15,
2015.
Returning to Perepelichny, we have to acknowledge that he was a key witness who could
potentially destroy the high-political-stakes scam being conducted with the Magnitsky dossier.
As Browder was responding with " I do not recall " and " I do not know " to
any real question asked him in court, the US judiciary system might have been very interested
in hearing from Perepelichny. This menace to the Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before
the bill passed the US House: on Nov. 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside
his mansion in London. The police investigation did not yield any tangible results, but the
theory of "Russian mafia" involvement was
implanted in the international media at the proper time. One month later the Magnitsky Act
was signed by President Obama
"... When some Washington (politician) was asked why he opposed Trump - He is not part of the Security establishment. "Security establishment" = insider ..."
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting
now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level
international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play.
One of the clear missions of Russian state television in 2016, the year of elections to the State Duma has been to
discredit Alexei Navalny, the long established blogger, wily critic of the Kremlin and leader of the new
generation 'non-systemic' opposition by exposing him as a fraud in the pay of Russia's Western rivals and
ill-wishers.
Several weeks ago Russian state television broadcast hidden camera recordings of Navalny's first meeting with Carl Bildt, former Swedish premier and foreign minister, best known in this part of the world for leading the Eastern Partnership program aimed at removing former Soviet republics, notably Ukraine, from the Russian sphere of influence.
A
screen shot from the documentary, with what is allegedly a conversation between Browder and Navalny
This past Sunday, the
Vesti nedeli
program, a prime time Sunday evening wrap-up of the week's news
presented by the senior journalist and manager of Russia's informational broadcasting resources, Dmitry Kiselyov,
showed excerpts from a documentary film about Navalny and his mentor, or handler, William F. Browder. (Video
below - in Russian only)
The film, entitled "The Browder Effect," was assembled by the channel's investigative reporter and presenter in his
own right, Yevgeni Popov. The full version of "The Browder Effect" will be aired on Wednesday evening, 13 April on
Russia's flagship network, Pervyi Kanal. However, from the lengthy segments shown on Sunday it is possible to draw
some conclusions about the sensational material it sets out.
Both Vesti 24 and Pervyi Kanal are Russian language stations directed at the domestic audience.
From the standpoint of their management, whatever is sensational about the film has to do with the way it
conclusively details Navalny's recruitment by Bill Browder in 2007 for a program run by Britain's Secret Intelligence
Service, also known as Military Intelligence (MI6), intended to destabilize the Russian government. Navalny came to
the attention of MI6 because Browder determined he was "the most suitable candidate for future political leader"
given his creativity, new media mastery and speaking skills on politics, law and economics.
We then follow Navalny's progress as a foreign-paid trouble-maker engaged in standing up for minority shareholders and exposing corruption in major Russian, partly state-owned companies, meaning that he was busily attacking Vladimir Putin's direct appointees. We are told Navalny was next a useful aid to U.S. authorities in compiling a list of high Russian judicial and penal administrative officials for inclusion in the Magnitsky List on the basis of their alleged involvement in the torture and murder in detention of Browder's erstwhile accountant, Sergei Magnitsky. One document from 2010 indicates Navalny received large sums of money, at one point a $300,000 payment, from his overseas handlers to apply his skills with social media and disseminate a positive spin on American sanctions to Russia's liberals and creative classes. The objective was to undermine popular trust in the courts.
The last documents involving Navalny shown on the Vesti nedeli
program Sunday date from just before
the State Duma elections on 4 December 2011, which were followed by massive street demonstrations against what was
called electoral fraud perpetrated by the ruling party. Notwithstanding the advice from his mentor, Browder, to
stick with his economic warfare on Russian big business and stay out of politics, this was the point when Navalny
went on to emerge as a key leader in the new generation of forces opposed to the Kremlin.
For Western observers, there is nothing sensational in the exposé of Navalny as a paid agent of British intelligence operating under the code name "Freedom." He is a remote personality, has been denounced by some in the West as a Russian nationalist and he is at liberty, not a prisoner of conscience. The truly sensational nature of Yevgeny Popov's film lies elsewhere, in its material on Browder. If Navalny was recruited by Browder, then Popov was obliged to show how it was that the billionaire co-founder and owner of Hermitage Capital, which was at one point the largest foreign portfolio investment company in Russia, could be an agent, code named "Solomon," in the MI6 documents presented on screen.
To answer this question, the film flashes back to 1995, and a Memorandum for the Chief of Secret Intelligence dated 12 July describing the attraction of Browder for his new bosses:
"he is an important figure in
integration of financial structures into the Russian economy. [He] has extensive contacts with [sic] international
banking community and has [sic] wide range of relations with representatives of business communities in the UK,
the USA, Europe, China and India."
This was about the time when Browder was making a transition from highly paid employee heading up the section of private investing in Russia at Salomon Brothers (hence the coy code name, a corruption of Salomon) to setting up his own investment company with seed capital from the elderly Syrian-Jewish-Brazilian banker and entrepreneur Edmond Safra. It was also the time when Browder, a US citizen became a British subject.
And so that we may understand why such talents and contacts could be useful to British (and by extension to American) intelligence, a further flashback to 28 August 1986 shows us a CIA document entitled "Change the Constitutional and Political System in Eastern Europe and the USSR" signed by the agency director Wiliam Casey. Among the specific actions within the scope of this program would be "getting control over financial flows and removing assets from the economies of developed countries."
The narrator explains that even more than 25 years after the disappearance of the USSR, this CIA policy, known as "The Quake" (Drozh', in Russian) remains in effect.
Not content with proving that a billionaire investment fund owner could also be an MI6 operative, the film's producer also saw fit to demolish via documentary proof the entire Browder story about the reasons for his being declared persona non grata in Russia in 2006 as a threat to national security and about the persecution of his loyal retainer Magnitsky at the hands of rapacious Moscow officials plundering the remains of his company.
It emerges from a memorandum to the Director of Central intelligence written on CIA letterhead and dated 20 September 2009 that Browder had discussed with MI6 the deteriorating health of Magnitsky in detention and that he was involved in plans to have the penitentiary service arrange the termination of medical services. The report went on to say that this 'medical error' could lead to Magnitsky's death.
A follow-on interview with one political analyst explains that Browder was the only one who could profit from Magnitsky's demise. We are told his former protégé was about to start talking to prosecution against his employers. Then his death provided the material for the cause célčbre that Browder would ride to nation-wide prominence in the USA and in Europe with the eventual passage of the sanctions on Russia he promoted as the just punishment for corrupt and murderous officials of the Putin regime.
Thus, the collateral damage resulting from Yevgeni Popov's exposé amounts to a devastating attack on the political situation in the United States, where the CIA is shown to have been complicit in setting up the case used to move the American political mood and legislation in a harshly anti-Russian direction via the Magnitsky Act sanctions. Here is a smoking gun of great potential importance for those who care about who is actually controlling the US government if not our elected leaders.
Part of the documentary rests on expert testimony of Russian political analysts. Part rests on skype texts and on telephone conversations intercepted by the Russian intelligence agencies. But the most important material, including the aforementioned 'smoking gun' come from documents in a cache prepared by Kremlin-nemesis Boris Berezovsky in London as he tried to negotiate with Vladimir Putin a possible return to his motherland that would land him in good graces and not in a prison cell.
One sequence in the documentary introduces us to Sergei Sokolov, the former chief of security for Berezovsky who, at his boss's instructions, hid copies of this cache of documents in several locations and eventually brought a set with him to Moscow, where we may assume Russian intelligence officers pored over them. Sokolov is not a new face to viewers of Russian state television. Several months ago he was shown in a documentary examining the death of Berezovsky in one of his London properties. The cache of documents was mentioned then but not described.
This peculiar provenance of the documents means that they should have been subjected to special scrutiny by Mr. Popov's team before presentation to the general public. Considering the possible impact of the content of these documents on US-Russian relations, such caution would be doubly recommended. Regrettably, that appears not to have been the case.
In the information war that has been ongoing and escalating to fever pitch ever since Vladimir Putin made his famous accusatory speech directed against the United States at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, I have examined closely a succession of key documents produced by the American side and its close allies and discovered patent fraud and forgeries.
In
my essay on the article "Containing Russia"
signed but not written by Yulia Tymoshenko and published in
Foreign Affairs magazine in the spring of 2007, I demonstrated how textual analysis could turn up inconsistencies
that give the lie to official attribution.
The same essay pointed out the fraud perpetrated by the German Marshall Fund in the summer of 2008 when it commissioned an open letter denouncing Barack Obama's recently launched policy of re-set which was distributed to and published by The New York Times and other mainstream media as a cri de coeur from Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and other Cold War heroes in the struggle against Soviet domination.
Still another essay of mine devoted to the launch of the EU's Eastern Partnership Program at a summit in Prague in May 2009 pointed to the American spelling used in the Southern Corridor papers presented in the concurrent summit on the New Silk Road for energy. While interference by MS Word spellcheck cannot be totally eliminated as an explanation, the greater likelihood was that these ostensibly European documents on a new, anti-Russian energy policy were written in Washington, D.C. See my book Stepping Out of Line, pp. 315 ff.
It is with this background of interest in textual analysis that I have approached the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect" and at once serious questions arose. In one or two documents, my reservations are at the level of tell-tale signs of Russian speakers' intervention: namely absence of or poor control over the use of articles. In the one memo where this occurs most, it could be just telegraphic style, but it stands out and differs from the other texts. Another document has one specifically Russian turn of speech. More generally, it is disconcerting that memorandums from the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the one memorandum on CIA letterhead are formatted identically. The most recent document, from MI6, the "Report on performing duties under special operation 'Magnitsky list'" is dated 'Jan 23, 2010,' American style; it has the American spelling of "program" and British punctuation. Such mongrel style does not usually exist in nature.
It is impossible to say what is the source of the problems cited. One possibility is that the documents, which are said to have come from the US embassy in London, were copied out by hand and mistakes were made in the transcription. Then they were retyped in a single style. Another possibility is that they are forgeries, pure and simple.
Having called attention to these issues, I hasten to add that the content of the documents as they concern Bill Browder ring true to my understanding of his possible role in the entire Magnitsky case. I say this on the basis of my personal reading of Browder during his two visits to Brussels in 2013 when I saw him and his road show exhibits up close.
In his first visit, at a public seminar on Russian political prisoners held in the European Parliament building on 5 June 2013, Browder brought a collection of spiteful witnesses intent on blackening the reputation of Vladimir Putin and his 'regime.' The seminar, which was sponsored by the neo-Liberal ALDE faction in the Parliament, was scheduled to take place one day after the publication of an Address to Foreign and Interior Ministers of the EU signed by 47 European Parliamentarians pressing on the EU executive the adoption of a law similar to the so-called Magnitsky Act.
Notwithstanding the various particular messages and particular concerns of the diverse panel, united only in its opposition to the Putin regime, the event was called to promote such a Magnitsky bill and those on the podium spoke in unison in its favor, disseminating the (manifestly false) idea that the bill enjoyed broad support within Russia and was only opposed by the regime itself. The entire proceedings were video recorded, presumably for future use in the halls of power by the event's sponsors.
At that event, Browder spoke very little. His task as master of ceremonies was to introduce his assembled witnesses. These included Mikhail Kasyanov, former prime minister and leader of the Parnas Party, together with Boris Nemtsov, the allied party to ALDE in the Russian Federation. A tearful speech was delivered by Pavel Khodorkovsky, son of the then still imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. But perhaps the most passionate speech was by the iconic freedom fighter Ludmila Alexeeva, former leading personality in the Moscow Helsinki Group. In her mid-80s but still very active, Alexeeva likened the environment in Russia to 1937, year of the Great Purge.
I wrote up my impressions of Browder's second visit to Brussels that year,
in a November essay
. On that occasion, which was nominally to present a book he financed promoting a Magnitsky
Act for Europe at the Brussels Press Club, Browder once again presented assorted witnesses, including the
particularly odious Vladimir Kara Murza, an unrestrained propagandist against the Putin regime and fellow-traveler
of the Parnas group. What was most revealing was the Q&A session in which Browder dropped his genial mask and
spoke openly about the need to punish by sanctions the million thieves and murderers who run Russia. His stated
objective was regime change.
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, Browder was enjoying vast popularity in the USA, was not doing badly in Europe and no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies.
Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeni Popov deserves credit for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we come to definitive answers.
The author is the European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. His most recent
book, "Does Russia Have a Future", was published in August 2015.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
I never liked Browder. His background reminds me too much of Armand Hammer (named after Arm &
Hammer). He had relatives that were jailed in the US as Stalin-era NKVD spies. He renounced his US
citizenship in part, for what the US did to them and the persecution of his father. The apple never
falls far from the tree. Another Berezovsky-type.
After what has happened in Ukraine, regardless of this programme; the Parnas party are going
nowhere, this just adds to the commonly held negative views of people like Navalny and his liberal
gang
Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already planning
other Ukraine-like destabilisation of Latvia, in order to further promote a further escalation
of the NATO-Russian relationship up to the moment they want to enforce a Russian response to
violence against the Latvian Russian minority with the use of tactile nuclear weapons which
would then allow a full war-response by NATO. The want to incite a rebellion of that minority,
to which the Latvian government, after first attempts to reconcile, is pressed by Poles and
Ukrainians to react toughly, so that step for step the situation becomes worse – up to the
moment of physical violence against the Russian minority which then would provoke a Russian
reaction for their support.
The plan was figured out by a thinktank for a US-conference
entitled "Rethinking Amageddon – Planning Scenarios for the Second Nuclear Age" on the 12th
February 2016.
According to the plans, worked out their by US-thinktanks, they have sketched their an
elaborate path to a full scale war in scripts available in the net.
While they know that unwilling and (in their eyes) too compromising and de-escalting EU
countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, the Chechs and the Greeks, could be an obstacle, they
have as well started various taskforce for the "information warfare". One which is directed to
make Europe's population swallow the idea of NATO airstrikes against Russia held a conference in
Novermber 2015 in Essen, Germany. Their strategic report can as well be found in the internet.
It shows the direction of NATO propaganda and the determination to abuse all our media for that
purpose:
It's all quite obvious, they do not even hide it. They are so damn sure that the public might
be distracted to the degree of complete disregard to all these plans – although they are
publicly available.
What can we do to prevent their scenario of a full scale Amageddon of Europe?
with all due consideration to potential and likely inevitable LOSSES ..
the RUSSIANS - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - no matter how remotely russian MUST BEGIN PREPARATIONS TO LEAVE -- and start transferring assets, however that goes n the
procedures...
i am talking about REAL ''PICK UP AND START LIFE" AGAIN..it is going to be a painful
process and they will have to sacrifice much of what they have established for generations in
the baltics...IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that the DUMA is about to approve the 1 hectare free ,
no tax for ''every russian citizen and foreigner that wants to establish in Russia for any
business or personal reasons -- EXCEPT to sell to foreigners" anyway.. And at least whatever
the limitations of that -- they DO have something to ''go home to" ..
a dacha, a new house, to build on free land, something...
RATHER THAN WAIT for their possessions to be confiscated, burned, and their lives
miserable BECAUSE they are russian in latvia, and baltics as will SURELY COME because they
are going to be used as ''BAIT" BY NATO/USA BALTICS to provoke russia.
but it is ALSO CLEAR that WORSE will come unless they already do it now. it is better that
whatever 'losses" they have to make for picking up - houses to sell, even at lower prices,
etc...are NOTHING COMPARED to if the USA/NATO/BALTICS
EVENTUALLY will provoke something like what happened in UKRAINE. AND BY LEAVING THEY
REMOVE A VERY, VERY LARGE part of national assets with them TO their true homeland in russia.
and at least -- literally -- BE SAFE.
IT HAS come to that point and the lessons of Ukraine, etc...have already shown they are
RUNNING OUT OF TME and can not rely on HOPE that things will be better and the worst can be
avoided. NOT AT ALL - THE USA ANGLO-AMERICAN regme changers through the baltics are INTENT on
creating a 'vietnam" RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
AND THE RUSSIAN ETHNICS better make their preparations now . bank accounts,
etc...businesses to liquidate -- invest again in russia, simply MAKE their chilldren
understand the critical importance that their very LIVES are at stake FOR BEING RUSSIANS.
AND it partly removes the EXCUSE by the USA/NATO/BALTICS. ''the russians left -- all of them" WHERE IS THIS RUSSIAN EXPANSION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? "IF you cross even an inch of russian borders -- your shps SINK, PERIOD".
it HAS TO be that kind of ''red line" now. as the LUNATICS OF the west and baltcs can't
and WON'T stop their lunacy. it is really time for KREMLIN RUSSIA - FORTRESS russia to make
the decisions without further delay , imo. and it has to now include the russian ethnics - they MUST FLEE - just like CRIMEA AND EAST
UKRAINE HAVE DONE -- FROM WESTERN FASCISTS that are impending in descending upon them.
- Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already
planning
I haven't gone through the sources yet. But are you telling the sources tells "US"
wants to destabilize Russia, and also start a WW? US is a superpower in decline -> US has
more important problems to worry about
US think tank - does not have to mean the client is US
A Russian think tank may be pro-Putin or anti-Putin. In last case that is not a "Russian"
think tank, more an Oligarch think tank
The US either wants to topple an independent Russian government or to go step for step up
a pre-planned escalation ladder. The fictitious scenario in the script, composed by a
thinktank for that conference, shows something like a chess arrangement: We will make move
x1, then they either will have to surrender or they will go step y1. Secondly we make move
x2, then they will either have to.... and so on.
In this scenario (which really names
the dates of the described chain of events, supposed to start next year) they really think
through any use of the weapons they have at their disposal.
And a second aspect becomes obvious: They are determined never to allow any of their
"allies" turning out to be a possible game-changer. They take into consideration that they
may always use Poland and Lithuania for the next step of escalation, if it's convenient,
and the German government to slow things down, if they need it. But that any other country
could persuade them to alter any of their steps or even the general course is definitely
outruled.
Nuclear war is not at all a no-go for the US, while I am absolutely sure that the
Russians would only make use of it under the inescapble threat of physical extinction -
following the clear message: "If you decide, we have to die, we won't go alone."
This is as well Ron Paul's view, that of Clinton's defense secretary William Perry and
Andre Damon's interpretation of John Kerry's current message to Japan.
Your source (1) is Washington DC / Pentagon related
http://csbaonline.org/publi...
We may equal that with Hillary in US. Your source (2) "FutureWorld Fundation"
My source (1) is from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. The persons
who sign responsible are all US congressmen. They have as well produced the script I
have linked (even if the link was as well given on the sites of Future World.)
Wikipedia says about the CSB:
"The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent,
non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in US defense policy,
force planning, and budgets. It is headed by Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point
graduate. According to its website, CSBA's mission is "to promote innovative
thinking and debate about national security strategy, defense planning and military
investment options [and] to enable policymakers to make informed decisions in
matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation."[1] CSBA emphasizes
initiatives the United States and its allies can take to wisely invest in the
future, even during periods of fiscal austerity and uncertainty. CSBA evaluates its
policy proposals through the net assessment methodology, wargaming, and by estimated
impact on the Department of Defense budget over multiple Future Years Defense
Programs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
How can you claim it has nothing to do with the US-administration?
the destabilizing of Russia project goes apace, even accelerating - it is what the USA
has to do in order to preserve its primacy - that's the whole point. it knows it is a
vicious rabid dog cornered in its exposed brutality so now -- it is lashing out in all
directions -- it's an all-out war, . that has actually been going from the USA FOR A LONG
TIME NOW. it can't help itself -- it's what the USA IS AND DOES.
Not very plausible, as Navalny spend time int he USA in YYale, so if he was recruted it is
probably during his stay in the USA, but connection of Bill Browder and MI6 is plausible
According to MI6 and CIA internal documents, Alexei Navalny had been recruited to work for
MI6 by UK hedge fund manager Bill Browder. His task is to carry out operation "Quake" which
aims to undermine the existing constitutional order of the Russian Federation. He is being paid
handsomely for his services via the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) human rights organisation.
Russia has claimed Magnitsky died of natural causes and, in a new twist, is now accusing
Browder of colluding with a British spy in 2009 "to cause the death of S. L. Magnitsky by
persuading Russian prison doctors to withhold care," according
to The New York Times .
From Vimeo site comment section: "Cynthia Buckner, 22 hours ago What a detective story, I watched it two times. This is what
making a documentary is all about, uncovering truth under layers of lies. This is why today's News Media is nothing but "Fake
News".
It's no longer available on Bitchute site. In any case, the two I have downloaded have
been dubbed in Russian. I was hoping to watch it later, but it's going take me awhile to
learn the language.
Amazing story of lies and deceit on the part of Browder seems like. I don't judge people
by the way they look, but just looking and listening to this guy makes me believe he is one
BIG slimey fellow, even without watching the movie.
I'd turn him over to the Russians for questioning. After all, he has nothing to worry
about if he has nothing to hide.
Not only "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our
ethics and our personalities", it crushes the will to resist presenting psychopathic dictate in
forms that make it difficult. Such as performance reviews waterboarding or putting individual in
the way too complex and self-contradictory Web of regulations.
Notable quotes:
"... An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults. ..."
"... Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system. ..."
"... The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us. ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics
and our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and
privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If
you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism
favours certain personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is
articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be
superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really be
noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know
a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they
were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel
little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli
and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who
has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist
by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist
on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial
crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone
countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury
and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more
profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does
emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in
psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from
performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on
external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has
aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of
temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell
white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of
revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently
and that fails to treat employees as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely
depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes
to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who
needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough,
all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and
exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and
ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever
before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those
who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security
system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale
of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political
messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible
individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of
this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox
of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed
freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new
laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these
things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by
indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a
bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything,
from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that
is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled
individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good
job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy –
unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school
teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in
economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet
our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be
lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed
ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the
worst in us.
Panic attacks, anxiety attacks, nervous breakdowns, depression, suicidal thoughts alienation,
cancers, withdrawal are all symptoms of the de-humanizing aspects of a market-driven life. In
its worst forms it manifests periodically in mass shootings at strangers. So what do people
do to cope? Drugs, pain killers, shrinks, alcohol, potato chips and soda. They then develop
obesity, diabetes and heart diseases and cancers. How to save a human species terminally
intoxicated with technology and enslaved by the market while the inner spirit is running
empty may not be possible given the advanced nature of the disease.
...what?
You fail to really acknowledge that time and again we've failed to exercise constrain within
the capitalist models. The the meritorious are often inadequately rewarded - when any person
in work cannot afford to home and feed themselves and their family then a reasonable balance
has not been struck - in that sense at no time in history has capitalism functioned
adequately.
To suggest that socialism is anti-human is to ignore how and why as a species we formed
societies at all, we come together precisely because there is a mutual benefit in so doing;
to help another is to help oneself - the model itself fails to operate in practice for the
same reason that capitalism does - the greed of the power holder.
You reserve your sharpest barbs for socialism, but at least within the socialist agenda
there is a commitment to the protection of the citizen, whoever they are, even the
'unmerited' as you describe them - a capitalist's paraphrase for 'those that create no
value'.
The socialist at least recognises that whilst the parent may be 'unmerited' their
dependants should be entitled to receive equality of opportunity and protection from the
'law-of-the-jungle' i.e., the greed of others.
The ability to generate wealth, simply by already having wealth and therefore being able
to thrive off the labour of others carries little merit as far as I can tell and does indeed
create the soul-crushing command-and-control empires of the capitalism that millions around
the world experience daily.
Neoliberalism is indeed a huge self-serving con and ironically the Thatcher/Regan doctrine
which set out to break the status quo and free the economy from the old elitist guard has had
exactly the opposite effect.
Capitalism cannot differentiate between honest competition and cheating. Since humans will
cheat to win, capitalism has become survival of the worst not the best.
The bottom line is the basic human condition prizes food, shelter, sex, and then goes
directly to greed in most modern societies. It was not always that way, and is not that way
in ever fewer societies. As it is, greed makes the world go around.
In capitalistic societies greed has been fed by business and commerce; in communist
societies it has been "some pigs are more equal then others"; and in dictatorships or true
monarchies (or the Australian Liberal Party) there is the born to rule mentality where there
are rulers and serfs.
Nobody ever seems to address the paradox of the notion of an absolute free market: that
within a free market, those who can have the freedom to exploit do exploit, thereby thus
eliminating the freedom of the exploited, which thence paradoxically negates the absoluteness
of the free market. No absolute freedom truly exist in a free market.
As such, the free market is pipe dream - a con - to eliminate regulations and create
economic freedoms only where they benefit the elite. The free market does not exist, is
impossible, and therefore should cease to be held as the harbinger of a progressive socio
economic reality.
If we are to accept the Christian assumption that we, humans, are all self-serving and
acquisitive, then we must, therefore, negate the possibility of an absolutely "free" market,
since exploitation is a naturally occurring byproduct of weak-strong interactions.
Exploitation negates freedom, and therefore, it must be our reality, as it is in all peoples'
best interests, to accept directly democratic regulations as the keystone to any market.
It sounds very like the Marxist critique of capital. And similarly, points to real problems,
but doesn't seek evidence for why such a sick situation not only persists, but is so popular
- except by denigrating 'the masses'.
Surely what is particular about our time, about industrialisation generally, is the
fragmenting of long term social structures, and orientation around the individual alone. It
seems to me the problem of our times is redeveloping social structures which balance the
individual and the socials selves, as all not merely stable but thriving happy creative
societies, have always done.
Their propaganda is the same- an obsessive hatred of the state in any form, a semi-religious
belief in the power of the individual operating in the free-market to solve humanity's ills.
Granted, they aren't social libertarians, but then, in the US, libertarians don't seem to
be either.
Pretty typical that the assumption is the Marx "nailed it" and any dissenters are
just "scared".
I'm scared by it too, as I said, it's a sensible fear of change. The question remains. What
if Marx's analysis, just the analysis, is broadly correct? What if markets really are the
road to ruination of our planet, morality and collective welfare in roughly the way that he
explained?
It's not a trivial question, and clearly the current economic orthodoxy has failed to
explain some recent little problems we've been having, while Marx explains how these problems
are structurally embedded and only to be expected. It is intellectual cowardice to
compulsively avoid this, in my view. Better minds than ours have struggled with it.
So beware of the fallacious argument from authority - 'You are stupid while I am
axiomatically very clever, because I say so, hence I must be correct and you must shut it.'
It goes nowhere useful, though we are all prone to employing it.
But it is not 'sixth form' thinking, surely, to consider these problems as being worth
thinking about in a modern context. It is a plain fact that Stalinism didn't work as planned.
We know it, but it doesn't make the problems it was intended to solve disappear to say
so.
If you believe human nature can be changed by enforcing your interpretation of Marx's
road to human freedom (a quasi-religious goal) you condemn millions to starvation,
slaughter, gulags, misery etc.
Please read what I actually wrote about that. I'm not remotely quasi-religious, nor do I seek
to enforce anything. My intention is only to expose a particularly damaging mythology. The
extent of my crimes is persuasion as a prelude to consensual change before necessity really
bites us all.
Markets conjure up the exact forms of misery you describe. Totalitarians of the right are
highly undesirable too. I am against totalitarians, as are you, but an admirer of Marx's
work. Do I fit into your simplistic categories? Does anyone? The freedoms we are permitted
serve the market before they serve people. Markets are a social construct, as is capital,
that we can choose to modify or squash. A child starving in a slum for lack of
competitiveness, for its inability to serve the interests of capital, is less abstract
perhaps.
The thing about selfishness and a brutal form of dog eat dog capitalism.
You see, it is a truth axiomatic that we human beings, as all living beings, are
fundamentally selfish. We have to be in order to survive, and excel, and advance and
perpetuate.
It is not theory but hard biology. You breathe for yourself, eat for yourself, love for
yourself, have a family for yourself and so on. People are most affected and hurt if
something happens to something or someone who means something to them personally. This is why
concepts such as religion and nationality have worked so well, and will continue to even if
they evolve in different ways, for they tap into a person's conception of theirself. Of their
identity, of their self-definition. People tend to feel worse if something bad happens to
someone they know than to a stranger; people tend to feel less bad when something happens to
a cockroach than to a dog, simply because we relate better to dogs than to insects...So even
our compassion is selfish after a fashion.
Capitalism and Socialism are two ends of the the same human spectrum of innate and
hardwired selfishness. One stresses on the individual and the other on the larger group. It's
always going to be hard to find the right balance because when you vest excessive power in
any selfish ideology, it will begin to eat into the other type of selfishness..
The world revolves around competing selfishnesses...
The global economy is based upon wasting lives and material resources.
Designer landfill is no longer an option and neo-liberalism, which places importance of
the invention called money over that of people (which is a dehumanising process), was never
an option.
It is time for the neo-liberal fake politicians (that is 99.99% of them) to take up
politics.
It really is, as ever since it is only another word for change, time for revolution.
By extension, moving away from a system the shuns those who 'fail' people would be
emotionally better off, and with the removal of the constant assessment and individualistic
competition, people may feel better able to relate to one another. This would imply that
healthy communities would be more likely to flourish, as people would be less likely to
ignore those on lower income or of 'lower status'.
Move to what system? What system would achieve this?
Whether you agree or not, it is pretty clear what was being said.
Of course it's clear. George and his followers dislike market based systems. It couldn't
be clearer. Even when the subject has little to do with the market, George and his followers
always blame it for everything that is wrong with this world. That's pretty much the whole
point of this article.
What's never clear is what alternative George and his followers propose that wouldn't
result in all of the same flaws that accompany market driven systems. How can they be so sure
some of those problems won't be worse? They always seem a bit sketchy, which is remarkable
given the furor with which they relentlessly critique the market. We are told of alternatives
concepts painted in the broadest of brushes, rich with abstract intangible idealism, but
lacking in any pragmatism. We are invited to consider the whole exercise simply as
academically self-indulgent navel gazing by the priviledged overeducated minority that
comprise much of the Guardian's readership. It's quite disappointing. This article correctly
details much of the discontent in the world. But this isn't a revelation. Where are the
concrete ideas that can actualy be implemented now? frontalcortexes at least makes a stab at something a bit more practicle than a 17
paragraph esoteric essay citing ancient Greek.
One of the worst thing is that the winners in the market race are showered with things which
are fundamentally valueless and far in excess of what they could consume if they weren't,
while bare necessities are withheld from the losers.
"... The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers ..."
"... The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which everywhere
insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work or out of work,
we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power either. In the
name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy. ..."
I was prompted to write it by a remarkable book, just published in English, by a Belgian professor of psychoanalysis, Paul Verhaeghe.
What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based
Society is one of those books that, by making connections between apparently distinct phenomena, permits sudden new insights
into what is happening to us and why.
We are social animals, Verhaeghe argues, and our identities are shaped by the norms and values we absorb from other people. Every
society defines and shapes its own normality – and its own abnormality – according to dominant narratives, and seeks either to make
people comply or to exclude them if they don't.
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is
that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better
off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control.
In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan
came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.
Verhaeghe points out that neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by a state of
nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to
suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest,
leads to innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
At the heart of this story is the notion of merit. Untrammelled competition rewards people who have talent, work hard, and innovate.
It breaks down hierarchies and creates a world of opportunity and mobility.
The reality is rather different. Even at the beginning of the process, when markets are first deregulated, we do not start with
equal opportunities. Some people are a long way down the track before the starting gun is fired. This is how the Russian oligarchs
managed to acquire such wealth when the Soviet Union broke up. They weren't, on the whole, the most talented, hardworking or innovative
people, but those with the fewest scruples, the most thugs, and the best contacts – often in the KGB.
Even when outcomes are based on talent and hard work, they don't stay that way for long. Once the first generation of liberated
entrepreneurs has made its money, the initial meritocracy is replaced by a new elite, which insulates its children from competition
by inheritance and the best education money can buy. Where market fundamentalism has been most fiercely applied – in countries like
the US and UK – social
mobility has greatly declined .
If neoliberalism was anything other than a self-serving con, whose gurus and
thinktanks were financed
from the beginning by some of the world's richest people (the US multimillionaires Coors, Olin, Scaife, Pew and others), its
apostles would have demanded, as a precondition for a society based on merit, that no one should start life with the unfair advantage
of inherited wealth or economically determined education. But they never believed in their own doctrine. Enterprise, as a result,
quickly gave way to rent.
All this is ignored, and success or failure in the market economy are ascribed solely to the efforts of the individual. The rich
are the new righteous; the poor are the new deviants, who have failed both economically and morally and are now classified as social
parasites.
The market was meant to emancipate us, offering autonomy and freedom. Instead it has delivered atomisation and loneliness.
The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers . It destroys
autonomy, enterprise, innovation and loyalty, and breeds frustration, envy and fear. Through a magnificent paradox, it has led to
the revival of a grand old Soviet tradition known in Russian as tufta . It means falsification of statistics to meet the
diktats of unaccountable power.
The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which
everywhere insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work
or out of work, we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power
either. In the name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy.
These shifts have been accompanied, Verhaeghe writes, by a spectacular rise in certain psychiatric conditions: self-harm, eating
disorders, depression and personality disorders.
Of the personality disorders, the most common are performance anxiety and social phobia: both of which reflect a fear of other
people, who are perceived as both evaluators and competitors – the only roles for society that market fundamentalism admits. Depression
and loneliness plague us.
The infantilising diktats of the workplace destroy our self-respect. Those who end up at the bottom of the pile are assailed by
guilt and shame. The self-attribution fallacy cuts both ways: just as we congratulate ourselves for our success, we blame ourselves
for our failure, even
if we have little to do with it .
So, if you don't fit in, if you feel at odds with the world, if your identity is troubled and frayed, if you feel lost and ashamed
– it could be because you have retained the human values you were supposed to have discarded. You are a deviant. Be proud.
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market"
delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should
be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective
bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility
and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more
equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired
their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and
class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their
failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are
unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out,
you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing
field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall
behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of
self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia.
Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously
applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale
reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the
globe
he International Monetary Fund has admitted that some of the decisions it made
in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis were wrong, and that the €130bn first
bailout of Greece was "bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have
been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that
it went along with its partners in "the Troika" – the European Commission and the
European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF, put the
interests of the eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch
their pearls and splutter with horror that they could be accused of something so petty as
self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece.
Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up
the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity", have
cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a
suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that
financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They
know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the
merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will
happen again, but more quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off,
not a repair job. The response from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the
way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as
the philosopher John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached:
adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big State.
Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome,
too centralised and faceless, to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the
ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who
will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen
to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any
state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom.
That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result,
governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further – some setting about
the task with greater relish than others. Now the task, supposedly, is to get the free market
up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group
of consumers – and the more sophisticated the market is, the more expensive it is to
cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves,
having been brought up believing in material aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should
access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be
conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda. But how can
the privatisation of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high,
working people are turning to food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry
that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up bargains in the form of busted
high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you
have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly
obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets
have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But
even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because
they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to
encourage private profit and shareholder value, then lend governments the money they need to
create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them for their
profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister, Anna
Soubry , suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up
families were putting the NHS under strain. The compartmentalised thinking is quite
breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while
working part-time – thus having the leisure to consume – the better. No doubt these
female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the
myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its
disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more
important than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your
own. You couldn't make these characters up. It is certainly true that women with children find
it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima facie
example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it
is so often presented – evidence that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many
aspects of financial services – that Britain enjoyed during the second half of the 20th
century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all else,
forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family
members. All of those things have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists
that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even
Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory ,
did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they
refuse to invest in making. Their refusal allows them to rail against the Big State while
producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their folly become
ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering
with their allies instead of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that far too much of
it is sold through Starbucks.
I was drafting a response to the comment by 'Barbara Ann' – thanks for the link to
the recent posts by Adam Carter – before going out. Returning and reading some very
interesting comments, I think what I wanted to say has more general relevance.
One reason I am reading so much into 'this Dzerzhinsky thing' is the body of accumulating
evidence that people like Tait are part of a system of networks which combine
sanctimoniousness, corruption and stupidity in about equal measures. So some more examples
may be to the point.
Different cases in which I have taken an interest come together in a post by Tait on the
'Lawfare' site on 13 March, entitled 'U.K. Prime Minister's Speech on the Russian Poisoning
of Sergei Skripal: Decoding the Signals.'
In support of the claim that in accusing Russia of a pioneering act of chemical terrorism
Theresa May was relying upon accurate analysis from the 'U.K. intelligence community', Tait
wrote that:
'May then explained that Skripal was poisoned by a "military-grade nerve agent of a type
developed by Russia one of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok.'" She is laying out
the basic groundwork for the government's attribution to a nation state and, more
specifically, Russia. At Porton Down, the U.K. has one of the world's best forensic labs for
analyzing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. With the poisoning of Alexander
Litvinenko in 2006, this lab not only established that Polonium-210 was used but also which
reactor in Russia it came from.'
In the event, as is by now well know, Boris Johnson's claim that Porton Down scientists
had told him that the agent which poisoned the Skripals came from Russia was specifically
repudiated by the head of that organisation, Gary Aitkenhead, on 3 April. Our Foreign
Secretary told a flagrant lie, and was exposed.
As I have shown in previous posts on this site, the 'Inquiry' conducted by Sir Robert Owen
into the death of Litvinenko was patently corrupt. Moreover, it seems highly likely that, in
fabricating 'evidence' to cover up what actually happened, Christopher Steele was doing a
'dry-run' for the fabrication of material in the dossier published by 'BuzzFeed.'
In fact, however, Owen's report made quite clear that the role of Porton Down was
marginal. Furthermore, 'Scientist A1' from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston
quite specifically rejected the claim that 'impurity profiling' made it possible to establish
that the source of the polonium was the Avangard facility at Sarov, her arguments being
accepted by Owen. Either Tait has not bothered to read the report or very much of the
coverage, or he is lying.
What Porton Down did do was to use 'impurity profiling', which can produce 'spectra'
identifying even the tiniest traces of substances, to frustrate the attempt to use the 'false
flag' attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 to inveigle the American and British governments
into destroying the Assad 'régime' and handing the country over to jihadists.
It may well be that this display of competence and integrity led to a 'clampdown' at the
organisation, which encouraged Boris Johnson to believe he could get away with lying about
what its scientists told him.
A general pattern which emerges is that the same small group of 'disinformation peddlers'
resurfaces in different contexts – and the pattern whereby 'private security companies'
are used to create a spurious impression of independence also recurs.
As I bring out in my piece on Ghouta, two figures who were critical in shaping the
'narrative' acccording to which Syrian government responsibility for the atrocity had been
conclusively proved, were Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly the former commanding
officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, and also NATO's
Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, and Dan Kaszeta.
Immediately after the story of the poisoning of the Skripals on 4 March broke, the same
duo reappeared, and have been as critical to shaping the 'narrative' about the later incident
as they were to that about the former.
(For the piece by Kaszeta on 'Bellingcat' which introduced the 'Novichok' theme four days
later, see
https://www.bellingcat.com/... .)
This makes it particular interesting to look at the website of Kaszeta's consultancy,
'Strongpoint Security Limited', in conjunction with the 'Companies House' documentation on
the company.
One would have thought from the website that his company was a small, but hardly
insignificant, player, in the field of 'physical and operational security.' As it happens,
having filed 'Total exemption small company accounts' since its incorporation in May 2011,
last December it filed 'Micro company accounts' for the year to 31 May 2017.
With a turnover of £20,000, staff costs of a bit more than half of that, and a
profit of £394, we can see that although unlike Matt Tait's, Kaszeta's company did
trade, if indeed it was his sole source of income, this pivotal figure in Anglo-American
'disinformation operations' was living on something less than $15,000 a year, at current
exchange rates. (Pull the other one, as we say in Britain.)
This is all the more ironic, as the website brings out quite how critical a figure Kaszeta
has been in obscuring the truth. From the bio he gives, we learn that having started as a
Chemical Officer in the U.S. Army, he worked for 12 years in the White House, dealing with
CBRN matters, before moving to Britain in 2008.
Among the articles to which he links on the site, we see his response in 'NOW Lebanon' in
December 2013 to Hersh's original 'Whose sarin?' piece on Ghouta, -- in which Kaszeta first
introduced the famous 'hexamine hypothesis.'
This – patently preposterous – suggestion that the presence of a single
'impurity' is a 'smoking gun' incriminating the Syrian government has echoed on into the
clearly corrupt OPCW documents purporting to demonstrate that it was responsible for the 4
April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Of some interest in understanding where Kaszeta he is coming from is what he describes as
his 'oldest (and most footnoted on Wikipedia)' piece, which is an article published in 1988
on a site called 'Lituanus', on 'Lithuanian Resistance to Foreign Occupation 1940-52.'
As to Colonel de Bretton-Gordon, it is of interest to look at the attempt to 'finger' the
GRU over the Skripal poisoning published under the title 'UK Poisoning Inquiry turns to
Russian Agency in Mueller Indictments' in the 'New York Times' last Sunday, and the response
by the Russian Embassy in London to a question about it.
The response objects that 'while the British authorities keep concealing all information
concerning the investigation into the Salisbury incident, the newspaper has quoted "one
former US official familiar with the inquiry".'
It also asserts that that crucial evidence which has not been made available to the
Russians – and here, as with Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun, the results of 'impurity
profiling' are critical – appears to have been shared not just with inappropriate
Americans, but with all kinds of others.
And indeed, the Embassy is quite right in suggesting that the claim made by the supposed
creator of 'Novichok', Vladimir Uglev, to the BBC in April about 'all the spectrum data I was
sent recently' has neither been confirmed nor denied. This seems a general pattern –
the 'spectra' which may actually be able to provide definitive answers to questions of
responsibility are only provided to people who can be relied upon to give the 'right'
answers.
The Embassy response also quite fairly refers to a report in the 'Times' also in April,
about the 'intelligence' which had been 'used to persuade world leaders that Moscow was
behind the poisoning' and that the 'Novichok' had been manufactured at the Shikhany facility
at in southwest Russia, which stated that de Bretton-Gordon, 'who had seen the intelligence,
called it very compelling.' He has a long history of lying about CW in Syria – so is
obviously the right person to lie about them in the UK.
It thus becomes interesting to probe into what lies behind the opening of de
Bretton-Gordon's entry on the 'Military Speakers' website ('Real Heroes; Real Stories.')
According to this, he is 'Chief Operating Office of SecureBio Ltd a commercial company
offering CBRN Resilience, consultancy and deployable capabilities.'
From 'Companies House', we learn that the liquidation of 'Secure Bio', which started in in
June 2015, was concluded in August last year. The really interesting thing about the records,
however, is that at the time of the liquidation the company had very large debts, which were
written off, of a kind and in a manner which suggested that de Bretton-Gordon's activities
may have been largely funded by loans from untraceable sources which were not meant to be
repaid.
Actually, with the 'NYT' report we come full circle. Among those quoted is Mark Galeotti
– apparently his admission that he had totally misrepresented the thinking of the
Russian General Staff has not him made more cautious about making extravagant claims about
its Main Intelligence Directorate (misreported as Main Directorate by the 'NYT.')
Also quoted are two figures who play key roles in Owen's Report – the Soviet era-GRU
defector 'Viktor Suvorov' (real name 'Vladimir Rezun') and the former KGB operative Yuri
Shvets. Both of these feature prominently in the posts on the Litvinenko affair to which I
have linked, and both were key members of the 'information operations' network centred around
the late Boris Berezovsky. This now seems to have taken control of American policy, as of
British.
The role of 'Suvorov'/Rezun in attempting to defend the interpretations of Stalin's policy
put forward by MI6 in the run-up to the Second World War, and those asserted later by General
Keitel, and the way he was demolished by the leading American historian of the War in the
East, Colonel David Glantz, and the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, is too large a
subject to go into here.
However, it provides further reason to wonder whether the misreadings of Stalin's policy
which caused MI6 to give advice to Chamberlain which helped destroy the last chances of
preventing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, may still be the 'house view' of that organisation. It was,
obviously, the Pact which spelled 'curtains' both for Poland and the Baltics.
More evidence for the at least passive complicity of GCHQ – for which Matt Tait used
to work, and which Robert Hannigan used to run – in corrupt 'information operations'
comes in a report yesterday on CNN.
'Police have identified two suspects in the poisoning of former Russian double agent
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN
on Thursday.
'The pair left the UK in the wake of the attack on what is believed to have been a
commercial flight, the source added.
'Their departure was revealed in a coded Russian message to Moscow sent after the attack,
which was intercepted by a British base in Cyprus, the source said. The British government
blames the Skripals' poisoning on Russia.'
The base in question is high up in the Troodos mountains, and is formally run by the RAF
but actually a key resource for both GCHQ and NSA in monitoring communications over a wide
area. According to an internal document from the former organisation, it has 'long been
regarded as a 'Jewel in the Crown' by NSA as it offers unique access to the Levant, North
Africa, and Turkey'.
That the quote comes a report in 'The Intercept' in January 2016 revealing that one of the
uses of the Troodos facility is to intercept live video feeds from Israeli drones and fighter
jets brings out how paradoxical the world is. For it also appears to have emerged as an
important resource in 'information operations' in support of 'Borgist' agendas.
The claim about intercepts incriminating the Russians over the Salisbury incident was
first made in a piece by Marco Giannangeli in the Daily Express on 9 April, which followed up
the claims which Colonel de Bretton-Gordon had been instrumental in disseminating, and was
then widely picked up by the MSM.
It was headlined: 'REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal
poisonings,' and opened: 'AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included
the phrase "the package has been delivered".'
Supposedly, this 'prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had
been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.' The messages were 'understood to have
formed "just one part" of the intelligence packet which later allowed Prime Minister Theresa
May to state it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind the attacks.'
As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a
parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013, in the 'Sunday Express', in relation
to the Ghouta 'false flag.'
This one was headlined, even more melodramatically, 'Senior Syrian military chiefs tell
captain: fire chemicals or be shot; BRITISH intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio
messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use of chemical
weapons.'
Part of the story of how bogus claims about 'smoking gun' evidence from 'SIGINT' were used
to support the attempt to use the Ghouta 'false flag' to inveigle the British and Americans
into destroying the Syrian government was told in my SST post on the incident. However, to
mix metaphors, I only scratched the surface of a can of worms.
In a report on the 'Daily Caller' site on 29 August 2013, Kenneth Timmerman claimed that
the sequence had started with an actual intercept by Unit 8200 – the Israeli equivalent
of GCHQ and NSA.
Claiming to base his account on Western intelligence sources, he suggested that:
'According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain,
France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel's famed
Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just
the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.'
While I am not in a position to establish whether his claim is or is not accurate, an AP
report on the same day quoted 'U.S. intelligence officials' explaining that 'an intercept of
Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct
evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander'.
Meanwhile, Timmerman's claim that 'The doctored report was picked up on Israel's Channel 2
TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The
Cable in Washington, DC' is supported by links to the relevant stories, which say what he
claims they say.
Moreover, it seems clear that the 1 September 2013 report was an attempt to counter a
– somewhat devastating – critique made in a 31 August post entitled 'The Troodos
Conundrum' by the former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who had been closely involved with
the facility during his time at the Foreign Office (and has written invaluable material on
the Salisbury incident.)
Precisely because of the closeness of the GCHQ/NSA collaboration, Murray brought out,
there was indeed a major problem explaining why claims about 'SIGINT' had been central to the
case made in the 'Government Assessment' released by the White House on 30 August 2013, but
not even mentioned in the Joint Intelligence Community 'Assessment' produced two days
before.
The answer, Murray suggested, was that the 'intelligence' came from Mossad, and so would
not have been automatically shared with the British. But, given the superior capabilities of
Troodos, if Mossad had it, the British should have also. So his claims 'meshed' with those by
Timmerman and the AP, and the 'Express' report looks like a lame attempt at a cover-up.
Again however, one finds the world is a paradoxical place. As I noted in my SST post,
detailed demolitions of the claims about 'SIGINT' in relation to Ghouta were provided both
Seymour Hersh, in the 'Whose sarin?' article, and also on the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' site
masterminded by one 'sasa wawa.'
Later, it became clear that this was likely to be the Israeli technology entrepreneur Saar
Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200. So this may – or may not – be an indication
of deep divisions within Israeli intelligence.
Between 18 March and 31 April, a fascinating series of posts on the Salisbury incident
appeared on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog. The author, who used the name 'sushi', was a
self-professed IT professsional, who had however obviously acquired an extensive familiarity
with 'chemical forensics' and appeared to have some experience of 'SIGINT.'
In a 14 April post, 'sushi' produced a dismissal of the claims about 'SIGINT' implicating
the Russians over the Salisbury incident quite as contemptuous as that which 'sasa wawa' had
produced in relation to the claims about it incriminating the Syrian government over
Ghouta.
Pointing to the implausibility of the story disseminated by the 'Express', he remarked
that:
'It is doubted that any message traffic is processed on Cyprus. It is more likely that the
entire take is transmitted back to GCHQ in Cheltenham via a fibre optic link. There exabytes
of take are processed, not by a bored flight lieutenant, but by banks of high speed
computers.
'Clearly someone in Cheltenham has committed a programming error. Anyone with any
knowledge of secret communications knows that the code phrase used to confirm a murder in
Salisbury is "small pizza, no anchovies." '
Interestingly, another paper in the 'Express' group made a parallel claim in relation to
the Khan Sheikhoun incident to that about the Ghouta incident, but the story was not picked
up and may indeed have been suppressed.
On 9 April, the paper published a report headlined 'Brit spies' lead role in Syrian air
strikes; RAF BASE IS 'WEAPON.' This claimed that 'within an hour of the airstrike', Troodos
had intercepted communications revealing that nerve gas had been used, and had been delivered
by jets from the Syrian Arab Air Force's Shayrat Air Base.
After another week saw leading Republicans accosted in public places, many on the left are
arguing that harassment is legitimate
The day after Sarah Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Maxine
Waters, the representative for the California 43rd who has become a leader of the anti-Trump
resistance within Congress, addressed a rally in Los Angeles. Up until that point, national
Democratic leaders had mostly urged respectful protest in response to the Trump
administration.
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up," she said to cheers from the crowd.
"And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them
they're not welcome any more, anywhere."
In the days that followed, other leading Democrats, among them Nancy Pelosi and David
Axelrod, distanced themselves from the comments and called for civility. Trump personally
attacked Waters, calling her an "extraordinarily low IQ person". But Waters gave voice, and
perhaps legitimacy, to what has become a prominent form of activism since Trump took office:
accosting members of his team in public places.
Over the weekend, Steve Bannon was called "a piece of trash" by a heckler at a bookstore; a
bartender gave Stephen Miller the middle finger, apparently causing Miller to throw away $80 of
sushi he'd just bought in disgust; and Mitch McConnell was chased out of a restaurant in
Kentucky by protesters, who followed him to this car yelling "turtle head" and "we know where
you live".
These follow similar encounters for other members of Trump's top team. The homeland security
secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was confronted by protesters chanting "shame" while she ate at a
Mexican restaurant. Last week, Scott Pruitt was accosted by Kristin Mink while he was eating
lunch. Mink, a teacher, held her two-year-old child as she asked him to resign "before your
scandals push you out". Days later, Pruitt did resign, and although he was probably asked to do
so by Trump, in his letter he cited "the unrelenting attacks on me" as his reason for
leaving.
After each case, the merits of such an approach have been debated – many have called
for civility or argued that protesters leave themselves open to attack if they pursue
Trump-like techniques. There has been some consensus that encounters like Mink's, which are
eloquent and non-aggressive, are more acceptable than when protesters chant personal attacks or
use threatening language
... you don't stand with most of C99 and most of progressive society. He is wrong, on this
and many other things. Where was his (and your) outrage when Obama was droning American
citizens, destroying Libya and creating Europe's current refugee crisis, and helping Saudi
Arabia wreak havoc on Houthi civilians? How many pies did he throw then? How many Obama
administration officials did he publicly shame?
administration too? He did many of the same things that Trump is doing to immigrants. He
deported more of them then any president including 56% of them who hadn't committed any crimes.
How about shaming them for his drone policies, killing 3 Americans without due process, bombing
wedding parties and then the people who came to their rescue? Or the many, many other things he
and his admin members did that were absolutely heinous?
Should we have done that to the people in the Bush administration too or how far back should
we have been shaming people who worked in a president's administration?
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass
Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:49pm
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to
pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Where it should -- with the non-voluntarily-complicit.
the publicly harassing, embarrssing, and running off the oposition then we're really fucked.
Or do you seriousy think those tactics won't be repaid in kind?
on public shaming.
#7
Especially in public restaurants.
There is no better way to protest this admin than to shame them in a public place, confront
them while they attempt to swallow a bite of pork chop.
up 0 users have voted. --
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes,
okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa Submitted by gulfgal98 on
Thu, 07/19/2018 - 12:00pmCritical thinking skills seem
to be non-existent over there.
Again, Markos and his staff refuse to discuss policy from a positive perspective. Instead,
they focus their readers on the outrage de jour and tribalism. The entire purpose of that site is
a massive propaganda push designed to keep us divided. And the narrative they keep pushing are
not only divisive, but extremely dangerous.
I rarely go there any more, mostly because I would like to keep as many of my remaining brain
cells intact. But when I have visited that place, it is a very frightening place to see how
Markos (post purge) has herded the remaining members into a small corral, all of them nodding in
agreement with whatever gruel Markos and his front pagers are serving up. Submitted by
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:29pmDaily Kos should change its name
to
@gulfgal98
BAR Book Forum: Jeremy Kuzmarov's and John Marciano's "The Russians are Coming, Again"
"The American people have been constantly manipulated and made to fear the Russian threat when
it is the United States that has been the aggressive power."
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This
week's featured authors are Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano . Kuzmarov is Jay P. Walker
Assistant Professor of American History, University of Tulsa. Marciano is Professor Emeritus at
SUNY Cortland. Their book is The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy,
the Second as Farce.
Roberto Sirvent: How can your book help BAR readers understand the current political and social
climate?
Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano: Our book provides a historical perspective on
contemporary affairs by showing how the Russo-phobia that has been prevalent in our political
discourse over the last four to five years has deep and long historical roots, and has often
been used by government leaders to turn public attention away from domestic inequalities by
channeling societal resources towards the military sector. During the early Cold War, a period
of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism
and the Cold War.The Korean War brought on huge military budgets that have never left us and an
expansion of the U.S. overseas military base network. These policies were underlain by
exaggerated views about the Soviet Union which were stoked by political elites, who had worked
for companies that reaped enormous profit from the permanent warfare state. The same forces are
behind the renewed efforts to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and exaggerate the
Russian threat, with serious adverse consequences for society that have already been evident.
The consequences include a revitalization of the arms race, waging of proxy wars, and a further
poisoning of the domestic political culture through the reinvigoration of a McCarthyist
discourse and tactics.
"During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of
the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War."
"... Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing were rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards. As the latest British account of the location of the alleged poison places it on the door handle of the Scripals' residence, the timetable element was also unconvincing. That meant that the two would have spent three hours, including a stop at a pub and lunch, before succumbing on a park bench. Military grade nerve agents kill instantly. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the politically weak May government, desperately seeking a formidable foreign enemy to rally around against, insisted that Russia, almost certainly acting under orders from Vladimir Putin himself, carried out the killing of a former British double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and who was no longer capable of doing any damage to Russia. Putin apparently did all that in spite of the fact that he had an election coming up and would be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an event that would be an absolute top priority to have go smoothly. ..."
Poisoning enemies has a long history with Augustus Caesar's wife Livia allegedly a master of the art, as were the Borgias in Renaissance
Italy. Lately there has been a resurgence in allegations regarding the use of poisons of various types by several governments. The
claims are particularly damaging both morally and legally as international conventions regard the use of poisonous chemical compounds
as particularly heinous, condemning their use because they, when employed in quantity, become "weapons of mass destruction," killing
indiscriminately and horribly, making no distinction between combatants and civilians. Their use is considered to be a "war crime"
and the government officials who ordered their deployment are "war criminals," subject to prosecution by the International Criminal
Court in The Hague.
There are two important poisoning stories that have made the news recently. Both are follow-ups to reporting that has appeared
in the news over the past few months and both are particularly interesting because they tend to repudiate earlier coverage that had
been largely accepted by several governments as well as the media and the chattering class of paid experts that appears on television.
The first story relates to the poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March.
There was quite a bit that was odd about the Skripal case, which
relied from the start " on circumstantial evidence and secret intelligence." And there was inevitably a rush to judgment. British
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson blamed Russia less than forty-eight hours after the Skripals were found unconscious on a bench in
Salisbury England, too soon for any chemical analysis of the alleged poisoning to have taken place.
British Prime Minister Theresa May threw gasoline on the fire when she addressed Parliament shortly thereafter to blame the Kremlin
and demand a Russian official response to the event in 36 hours, declaring that the apparent poisoning was "very likely" caused by
a made-in-Russia nerve agent referred to by its generic name novichok. The British media was soon on board with a vengeance, spreading
the government line that such a highly sensitive operation would require the approval of President Vladimir Putin himself. The expulsion
of Russian diplomats soon followed with the United States and other countries following suit.
Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing were rejected by the British government
in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100
yards. As the latest British account of the location of the alleged poison places it on the door handle of the Scripals' residence,
the timetable element was also unconvincing. That meant that the two would have spent three hours, including a stop at a pub and
lunch, before succumbing on a park bench. Military grade nerve agents kill instantly.
The head of Britain's own chemical weapons facility Porton Down
even contradicted claims made by May, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, and British Ambassador in Moscow Laurie Bristow. The lab's
Chief Executive Gary Aitkenhead testified that he did not know if the nerve agent was actually produced in Russia, a not surprising
observation as the chemical formula was revealed to the public in a scientific paper in 1992 and there are an estimated twenty countries
capable of producing it. There are also presumed stocks of novichok remaining in independent countries that once were part of the
Soviet Union, to include Russia's enemy du jour Ukraine, while a false flag operation by the British themselves, the CIA
or Mossad, is not unthinkable.
Nevertheless, the politically weak May government, desperately seeking a formidable foreign enemy to rally around against,
insisted that Russia, almost certainly acting under orders from Vladimir Putin himself, carried out the killing of a former British
double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and who was no longer capable of doing any damage to Russia.
Putin apparently did all that in spite of the fact that he had an election coming up and would be the host of the World Cup in the
summer, an event that would be an absolute top priority to have go smoothly.
Now there has been an actual death in Amesbury near Salisbury that has been attributed to novichok. On June 30 th ,
Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were admitted to hospital after being found unconscious. Sturgess died eight days later. The May
government has not yet blamed it on Putin or even on a clumsy Russian operative that might have
inadvertently left behind a vial of poison or a used syringe,
though Home Secretary Sajid Javid came close to that when he suggested
that Russia was using Britain as a "dumping ground for poisons." Police suggestions that the poisoned couple appear to have handled
novichok infused material of some kind before succumbing appears to be contradicted by inability to find the actual source of the
alleged exposure.
British government dancing around the issue notwithstanding, there have been suggestions that the closest source of more novichok
might well be the U.K. government labs at nearby Porton Down, only seven miles from Salisbury and Amesbury, which increases suspicion
about the original story promulgated by Downing Street. Would the British government actually poison an expendable ex-Russian spy
and his daughter to divert attention from a domestic political problem at home? It's worth considering as the "blame it all on Putin
narrative" becomes even less credible.
The second story comes from Syria, where there is also a Russian hand as Moscow is aiding the government of Bashar al-Assad. The
by now notorious April 7, 2018 alleged chemical attack on the rebel-held Syrian city of Douma was widely blamed by Western countries
and the mainstream media on Assad's forces. This resulted in a decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to order massive U.S.-led
retaliatory airstrikes against targets reportedly involved in chemical production in and around Damascus.
Trump blamed
"animal Assad" for
"using nerve agents" and both the media and most European governments followed that line, concluding that Damascus had ordered
the chemical attacks a mere moments after videos purporting to show scores of chemical attack victims first surfaced from rebel sources,
long before U.S. intelligence could have made its own assessment. A 5-page
White House assessment released on April 13th, just days after the alleged attack
asserted that sarin was used at Douma , claiming that "A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine
in its bombardment of Duma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin."
Independent sources warned at the time that
not a single neutral observer was on the ground to confirm that chemical agents launched by the Syrian government had, in fact,
been used, but were ignored. All of the sources reporting the attack were either affiliated with the rebels who occupied the area
or were not physically present in Douma.
Now, finally, three months later, there has been a credible independent report on what was determined about the attack through
chemical analysis of traces recovered in Douma. A preliminary report published last Friday by the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no traces of any nerve agent like sarin at the site. The OPCW report
states this clearly : "No organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples
or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties."
This means that the Trump Administration claimed to have details relating to an event in a foreign country that it did not know
and could not actually confirm to be true. And it used that as a justification for ordering an airstrike that killed people and destroyed
targets in Syria. Will the White House respond to the OPCW report and apologize, possibly to include reparations for an unjustified
attack on another sovereign nation? Don't hold your breath.
The Salisbury and Douma attacks are illustrative of just what happens when a government is prepared to dissimulate or even lie
to go the extra mile to make a case to justify preemptive action that otherwise might be challenged. Theresa May is, unfortunately,
still in power and so is Donald Trump. In a better world an outraged public would demand that they be thrown out of office and even
possibly subjected to the tender ministrations of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. With power comes accountability,
or at least that should be the rule, but it is a dictum that has for some time been ignored. Even given that, one might hope that
the blunders will not be repeated, but there is not even any assurance that either May or Trump is much given to "lessons learned"
or that a Mike Pence or Boris Johnson would be any better. That is our tragedy.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134
and its email is [email protected].
Putin apparently did all that in spite of the fact that he had an election coming up and would be the host of the World
Cup in the summer, an event that would be an absolute top priority to have go smoothly.
[...]
Would the British government actually poison an expendable ex-Russian spy and his daughter to divert attention from a domestic
political problem at home? It's worth considering as the "blame it all on Putin narrative" becomes even less credible.
Mr. Giraldi,
these were my thoughts at first too, but I looked into the case quite extensively over the last several weeks and came to the
conclusion that Putin actually had more of a motive than the British government, et al.
This is my evolution on the Skripals' case:
On Skripal I'm not entirely certain, since I haven't really looked into the case. Also the timing of the incident seems
to be not what Putin would have chosen, in my opinion, since it was too close to the soccer World Cup events/celebrations in
Russia, and Putin usually tries to be conciliatory with the West before big sporting events like that in Russia, e.g. when
he released Khodorkovsky early before the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, for example.
As I said before, I was agnostic about the Skripal case and tried to keep an open mind about it and not reflexively blame
it on (the) Russians (government), but you providing me with this additional information makes me actually more of a believer
in the official Western narrative now.
Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing were rejected by the British government
in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within
100 yards.
It was hilarious to watch yesterday evening, as the presidential plane had been underway for two and a half hours, the consternation
on CNN.
As I expected, the vague accusations about Russian meddling in the elections continued this morning, on CNN.
I remember an interview on CNN before the elections, someoen said 'if Trump wins', the two of CNN burst into laughter.
I do hope Trump survives, politically and fysically.
Luckily is it not very ease to murder a president these days.
On top of that, Sept 11 made many all over the world quite suspicious.
I for one never believed that Russia would be so stupid as to try to murder two former spies in such a stupid way, and without
any motive.
MH17 is a similar case.
Assad also is not stupid, he had no interest whatsoever to use poison gas in Syria.
How Arafat died we still do not know, that was done professionally, or maybe not, if I had to kill him I would try to make his
death look natural, a clear cause.
Who had a motive is quite clear.
Until the unhinged May lets Yulia go free–if she's still alive–and go back to Russia and tell her side of the story, nothing will
change.
The so-called Deep State and its willing toady, the corrupt, lying MSM are accomplices in this False Flag and they are the
ones that should be in the dock at the ICC. But since the ICC is part of the Deep State, don't expect this to happen.
This Russian bashing has gotten completely out of hand. And now that Putin has stated that the sleazy Russian thief oligarch
Browder helped launder 400 million to the DNC-Clinton Mob, it's going to get very interesting, if not dangerous for humanity.
They need a BIG distraction to get the sheeple's thought off the truth that there is NOTHING to the Putin-Trump election meddling,
anything might happen, even a repeat of the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag.
Does 'Lucky Larry' own anymore asbestos-laden skyscrapers?
i would love to make a formal complaint about conspiracies because there are people who will and do make trouble for others. it
has taken me a long time to come to that place – but it is no joke as dr. geraldi no doubt knows.
however, one needs the evidence and what has been lacking in all these accusations whether its russia and us elections, chemical
weapons in syria, or supposed poisoning of three people formerly associated with russia, there is suspicion, and there is narrative,
but little in the way of facts. and if any of these accusations were concerning single individual battling mere gossip and innuendo
or other nefarious behaviors, i have learned to discount nothing. look if you can't bring a coupon into a store, wait for coffee
without people launching into fits of fear of life . . . then who knows what triggers people's self defense. it apparently dos
not take much for the supposed superior people to make their inferiors look off kilt. i just take it granted that when i leave
my house, on occasion, i have visitors – as "nutty" as that sounds.
but these cases have multiple researchers and resources to bar on the matter and yet, the evidence is either mere narrative,
contradicted or has a variety of explanations just as reasonable or more reasonable. but what we have is an entire population
engaged in manufacturing not one but several cases in which the president of the us actually engaged in treason based on sketchy
financial dealings with russian banks and financial elites.
and i think this article makes the case that people with power who engage in wielding accusations should be held to the standard
of providing evidence. and while i am a little uncomfortable with our president engaging in open debate with our intel community
from overseas, his objection is well put. the process of evidence collection and by independent objective observers is unreasonable.
yet he found it quite convenient to buy the argument by the same intel agencies for said use in syria. the election is over, but
the war about the election, the level of dislike of the elected , i think it is fair to say has never been so widespread and deep
such that members of the government or government agencies would sign up to press the matter.
and quip reflctions about the damage being done and "it's all in one's head" just are insufficient to address the issues.
frankly, i think the country's not outraged because they are "drama fatigued" last week in attempting to capture a stray kitten
who disappearance has me overly stretched – i never used to like cats – bells rang and doors closed indicating that she had in
fact been enclosed on the patio – around two am or so – only to discover a cute little skunk was the detainee. whose release required
navigating around the house twice because the door locked actually worked. sometimes the evidence doesn't doesn't reveal what
was expected.
as for the kitten, evidence suggests she managed to punch her way through a steel mesh garage vent. now i suspect that someone
recently punched a hole in those mesh barriers, but that is speculation on my part, even likely speculation. however, minus the
proof that is all it is. a mysterious frustrating event.
With the sad demise of the woman of the couple, the continuing make-up story in MSM makes the twist that the nerve agent was found
in a perfume bottle. While of these two non-Russian people (who allegedly were former drug-addicts) one may suspect that they
pick up any strange bottle from the ground and have a sniff at it, this is completely surrealistic in the case of the Skripals.
The difference couldn't be bigger between these two couples. Anyhow, the clue that brings them four together is the vicinity of
Porton Down, where chemical weapons are stored & tested.
If I had to guess at what's been going on in Salisbury I'd wonder if a lunatic/evil employee at Porton Down has smuggled out something
nasty and is amusing himself with it.
The author laments that May and Trump are still in office.
She will last longer than he will. Trump will be out in three months either by impeachment and conviction or by other means. None
of this clandestine stuff like poisoning but by a military coup. I remember the era of 7 Days in May but that was not serious
just a storey teller weaving a good yarn. Today, we have members of Congress and large numbers of the media(probably over 50 percent)
calling for a Armed Forces take over.
The probable stumbling block is how to skip Pense and go directly to Speaker Paul Ryan. Or how to dispense with the chain of succession
entirely and enshrine Hilary or recall Obama until the emergency is over.
Is Mad Dog the man or will McMaster lead the coup? Remember, anyone wearing more than one star made the elite grade during the
Obama regime and some of the one stars had formative years as O-6 and O-5 while Obama ruled supreme.
Quickly, not instantly. If you had an atropine pen handy, you might survive, though it would leave you immobilised and dazed.
If the Skripals were dosed, it would likely have been at or near the bench where they were found. Residue on their clothing might
be weak enough to not kill the constable.
The only thing the Salisbury incidents provide evidence for is that our culture is prone to hysterical outrage over anything
relating to Russia or Putin.
And that's true even if it were rogue elements in the Russian security services.
What I really loved about the coverage of the Skripal "poisoning" were the pictures of the cops wearing hazmat suits to clean
up the park bench. In the same shot birds were hopping around apparently unaffected by the deadly nerve gas. So we're to believe
that this stuff could kill a big cop but not a 2 pound pigeon .
British secret service and its 3 main children – CIA, Mossad, Saudi General Intelligence Agency – are morally capable of committing
any horror imaginable against civilians, even their own.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire is desperate to find the One Ring That Rules Them All.
That's so naďve. When you commit a crime and have witnesses in your custody, you make sure they never talk. "Elementary, Watson",
as Holmes used to say.
That's why we have "journalists" and "historians," mass media and skoolink (yooniversities included), and I find it amazing
that the stories change as fast as the agendas.
Oh "These Kids today" that old refrain again, and it's getting old too, all the emphasis on kids anyway, from concerns about
posterity, to the unending posturing about faux parent related concerns sublimated in one way or another to the other mantra:
" oh the Children" thing that phony liberal types do.
But to the point:
What a pity Western "Intelligence" seems to have never heard the story of The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'.
When do these little monsters ever get a chance to hear childhood stories nowadays glued to their carry style devices, wearable
devices, soon inserted devices , to hear any of the old wisdom? It now isn't all that likely. It is more the kids teaching
the kids in a modern high tech reality version of Lord of the Flies scenario.
When they are inevitably inducted into the professions as they will, replacing remnants of earlier generations that maybe still
had been somewhat exposed to folk tales and stories, or better TV of earlier times, well, don't be surprised that the rank and
file of the intelligence industry, like elsewhere is unable personally to easily navigate anything, much less possessing inborn
sensibility gained from age old culture and all that. Could it be in the whole Fake News genre too, it seems to indicate
some dialectic flaw in thinking, (a priori as it were.) I feel like it's coming from youngsters lacking any frame of reference/experience
blundering, not being held to account!
The Brat Pack was given free reign and away they go arrogant to a fault
What was folk knowledge is a cumbersome, anachronistic, vestigial relic of another era, sought to be replaced soon, by robots.
None of this clandestine stuff like poisoning but by a military coup. I remember the era of 7 Days in May but that was not
serious just a storey teller weaving a good yarn. Today, we have members of Congress and large numbers of the media(probably
over 50 percent) calling for a Armed Forces take over.
Watching too many old movies now , haven't we? LOL!!
The probable stumbling block is how to skip Pense and go directly to Speaker Paul Ryan. Or how to dispense with the chain
of succession entirely and enshrine Hilary or recall Obama until the emergency is over.
Ok, now you need to be put down or at least committed. LOL
I'm glad Litvinenko Sr. is taken care of in his old age by the Russian state:
BAD CHEMISTRY? Ft. Walter Litvinenko, Father of Alexander Litvinenko
Although he chose to leave Russian of his own will, the authorities were unlikely to welcome him back and his dramatic u-turn
looks like a calculated attempt to smooth the way for his return to the country of his birth.
Clearly relishing Mr Litvinenko senior's propaganda gift in the run-up to a presidential election expected to be won by
Vladimir Putin next month, Russian state TV said the unhappy exile had run out of money and that electricity and gas had been
cut off to his tiny Italian flat for non-payment of bills.
[...]
Alexander Goldfarb, the co-author of a book about the murder and a friend of the late Litvinenko, accused Russian TV of acting
in an irresponsible and inhumane manner, saying the Kremlin's propaganda chiefs had exploited his grief and troubled psychological
condition.
"They used the troubled psychological state of an elderly man for propaganda purposes in order to whitewash Alexander's
killers," he said.
"Walter is going through a really tough time in connection with his wife's death a few months ago and feels lonely. It happens
with old people."
Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance' – BBC Newsnight
Newsnight's Diplomatic and Defence Editor, Mark Urban, reveals that the Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance' and that
he personally had several meetings with Sergei Skripal last year.
I am very embarrassed for the GRU , they are even more incompetent than the French Secret Service combat swimmers who blew
up the that Greenpeace ship. Russia should have sent a Spetsnaz veteran with his trusty entrenching tool to deal with Skripal.
Or maybe one of their Kamikazi exploding dogs.
Maybe Putin did have them killed or poisoned because Russian intelligence had uncovered their plot to explode a dirty
bomb in London which had been set up so as to implicate the Russians. The plotters were foiled and hoist by their own petard.
I tell you a secret. GRU agents, on direct orders from Putin, killed JFK, burnt Giordano Bruno, crucified Christ, and poisoned
Socrates. What's more, they are also responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Didn't you suspect that?
I did not even know those you named had ever been in the GRU, let alone they were British moles.
If you wake up and there is snow all over the ground, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed in the night. When a Russian
poisons Russians there is not all this Technical Tom sophistry, and motive is important especially when it supports the circumstantial
evidence.
' Theresa May is, unfortunately, still in power and so is Donald Trump. In a better world an outraged public would demand that
they be thrown out of office '
At least in the case of Trump, the problem with rejecting him is, as it always has been, the alternative.
It's literally oppressive that to date, no superior alternative to Trump has emerged. However, like it or not, one hasn't.
Is there a superior alternative to May? If there is, why didn't Brits get rid of that embarrassment? Next to her even John
Major looks like an outstanding statesman.
Every time I think about it, I do find it truly astonishing that we (the USA) launched a missile salvo into Syria based on an
obvious and now proven false flag, and very few people seem to care. This is one of those glaring, "hidden in plain sight"
contradictions to the narrative which tells me that, while the Deep State is finally losing some ground, its liquidation is far,
far from over and all kinds of things are going to fall apart as this thrashing monster slowly sinks beneath the waves.
Yes, interesting that PG has only now brought to a UR article that rather obvious possible connection between Porton Down and
the nearby poisonings.
I don't think it is one of his major areas of attention. Why else would he include with Trump the unfortunate May as someone
he would like to see people rise up against and throw out of office for offences unstated?
Her performance on Skripal right or wrong is hardly worth mentioning when deciding whether and when she has to go. Compared
to Brexit give it a 2 per cent weighting.
My guess is that we haven't heard the last of Ms. Hyphen-Cortez.
"Ocasio-Cortez hedges criticisms of Israel– 'I may not use the right words'
US Politics Philip Weiss on July 15, 2018
Rising Democratic star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, soon to go to Congress from NY, all but apologized for using words "massacre"
and "occupation" about Israel, saying she spoke as an "activist," and she is no expert on the Middle East and is willing to "learn
and evolve." '
Her performance has included telling bald-faced lies, lies that are easily exposed as lies too. This is rarely if ever going
to add weight to any personal brand, let alone that of a political leader. She's toast!
ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate
expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
It's been imputed that the Russians did this to damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton. To
take the alleged damage to reputation angle to its conclusion, truth is an entirely sufficient
defense to any charge of libel. What was revealed by an alleged hack was the truth, something
that is entirely lacking in the rest of this affair.
As for the alleged theft and public release of email, ill-gotten goods are undeserving of
protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their
combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
The Russian GRU is accused of revealing that the people who run the DNC and Clinton campaign
committee colluded with each other to steal the nomination. The allegedly hacked emails show
what they really did and thought during the fraudulent nomination of Hillary Clinton. It might
be argued, that whomever revealed the truth actually did a public service for the American
people. An odd sort of "act of war," that.
Finally, individual officials and military officers have a limited immunity and are not
normally indicted by foreign states for intelligence activities such as electronic surveillance
and hacking across borders. That is where the element of harm comes in. The only real precedent
for this is the Rainbow Warrior case. In 1985, French intelligence officers blew up and sank a
Greenpeace ship by that name anchored in Auckland, NZ harbour, killing a passenger, a Dutch
photographer. A UN arbitrator held in that case the French agents were not immune under
customary international law to prosecution in a New Zealand court and could be individually
tried and jailed, but only because of the death of the victim as part of "a criminal act of
violence against property in New Zealand . . . done without regard for innocent civilians."
Greenpeace was additionally awarded damages in the UK under international Maritime Law because
the vessel was a British-flagged ship.
Also bear in mind, the US and UK both provide immunity to their own intelligence officers
and law enforcement officers for hacking and related computer crimes committed against foreign
powers. The UK takes that a step further and exempts police officers for domestic hacking:
This is a dangerous precedent, and the likely result is to ignite retaliation and further
exacerbate U.S.-Russian tensions. The entire staffs of the NSA, GCHQ and GRU could be similarly
"prosecuted," but what will that accomplish? Even if every word of the indictment is fact, the
indictment itself violates the norms of international law and this latest "Russiagate"
escalation by Mueller seems intended to ratchet up the New Cold War.
That is why "Russiagate" is a legal sham, in my opinion. Even if the alleged Russian hack of
the DNC email actually happened as claimed, and even if the hack was with bad intent, there was
no real crime or harm in the release of that information. That information was no more the
private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the
robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?
"... In my last post I set out the official Government account of the events in the Skripal Case. Here I examine the credibility of this story. Next week I shall look at alternative explanations. ..."
In my last post I set out the official Government account of the events in the Skripal
Case. Here I examine the credibility of this story. Next week I shall look at alternative
explanations.
Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve
agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British
intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting
nerve agent on doorknobs.
The only backing for this statement by Boris Johnson is alleged "intelligence", and
unfortunately the "intelligence" about Russia's secret novichok programme comes from exactly
the same people who brought you the intelligence about Saddam Hussein's WMD programme, proven
liars. Furthermore, the question arises why Britain has been sitting on this intelligence for a
decade and doing nothing about it, including not telling the OPCW inspectors who certified
Russia's chemical weapons stocks as dismantled.
If Russia really has a professional novichok assassin training programme, why was the
assassination so badly botched? Surely in a decade of development they would have discovered
that the alleged method of gel on doorknob did not work? And where is the training manual which
Boris Johnson claimed to possess? Having told the world – including Russia -the UK has
it, what is stopping the UK from producing it, with marks that could identify the specific copy
erased?
The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double
agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously.
It seems remarkable that the chosen target of an attempt that would blow the existence of a
secret weapon and end the cover of a decade long programme, should be nobody more prominent
than a middle ranking double agent who the Russians let out of jail years ago. If they wanted
him dead they could have killed him then. Furthermore the attack on him would undermine all
future possible spy swaps. Putin therefore, on this reading, was willing to sacrifice both the
secrecy of the novichok programme and the spy swap card just to attack Sergei Skripal . That
seems highly improbable.
Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the
Skripals.
The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the
corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made,
even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that
finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents, the
programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia and
Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility in
Uzbekistan in 2002.
Furthermore, it was the USA who decommissioned the facility and removed equipment back to
the United States. At least two key scientists from the programme moved to the United States.
Formulae for several novichok have been published for over a decade. The USA, UK and Iran have
definitely synthesised a number of novichok formulae and almost certainly others have done so
too. Dozens of states have the ability to produce novichok, as do many sophisticated non-state
actors.
As for motive, the Russian motive might be revenge, but whether that really outweighs the
international opprobrium incurred just ahead of the World Cup, in which so much prestige has
been invested, is unclear.
What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a motive. The obvious motive is to attempt
to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to do this include Ukraine and Georgia,
with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and those states and jihadist groups with
which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military industrial complex also obviously has a
plain motive for fueling tension with Russia.
There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest
with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal's MI6 handler Pablo
Miller' s work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump.
Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia
had the motive, are massive lies on both counts.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei
Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow.
In an effort to shore up the government narrative, at the time of the Amesbury attack the
security services put out through Pablo Miller's long term friend, the BBC's Mark Urban , that
the Russians "may have been" tapping Yulia Skripal's phone, and the claim that this was strong
evidence that the Russians had indeed been behind the attack.
But think this through. If that were true, then the Russians deliberately attacked at a time
when Yulia was in the UK rather than when Sergei was alone. Yet no motive has been adduced for
an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have
painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone. Furthermore, it is
pretty natural that Russian intelligence would tap the phone of Yulia, and of Sergei if they
could. The family of double agents are normal targets. I have no doubt in the least, from
decades of experience as a British diplomat, that GCHQ have been tapping Yulia's phone. Indeed,
if tapping of phones is seriously put forward as evidence of intent to murder, the British
government must be very murderous indeed.
Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the
suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the
centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a
long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International
Space Station. They can kill an old bloke in Salisbury. Why did the Russians not know that the
dose from the door handle was not fatal? Why would trained assassins leave crucial evidence
lying around in a public place in Salisbury? Why would they be conducting any part of the
operation with the novichok in a public area in central Salisbury?
Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective
gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6,
and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard,
some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least
five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and
instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally
close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though
the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals
because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the
novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours,
and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for
help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random
completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the
nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknob,
but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene
where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly
substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks,
possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed
container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has
this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again? If Rowley and Sturgess had direct
contact straight from the container, why did they not both die quickly? Why had four months
searching of Salisbury and a massive police, security service and military operation not found
this container, if Rowley and Sturgess could?
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory
I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British
government and its corporate lackies.
My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.
"Almost all the Syrians who fled to the border with Jordan from an army offensive have
now returned to their homes, a top UN official says."
Just days ago they reported that "The offensive in Syria's south-west had earlier forced
more than 320,000 people to flee," and were bleating that Jordan should open their border
and let them all in.
Today "Anders Pedersen, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Jordan, said that "around
150 to 200 people (are) right now at the border".
320,000 became <200 in a matter of days. LOL
So, once again we see that the civilians were fleeing the fighting, NOT the Syrian
government. And once the SAR regains control of an area, almost everyone returns.
In the July 07, 2018 edition of Moon of Alabama, I asked everyone for links and alt-media
websites to go to. The way I did it seemed to be disruptive, given the reactions that I got.
I wanted to apologize for that. I simply wanted to learn more about alt-media websites, not
to troll, but I could have done it in a better way.
Anyway, let's share some alt-media websites that we know of.
Got a host of leftwing websites and rightwing websites and alt-media websites that I don't
think are either leftwing or rightwing, so if you want anymore, just ask me.
Anyway, please, if you've got any alt-media websites you'd like to share, I think that the
Open Thread is the best place to do it. I'm always on the look-out for any alt-media
websites, so if you've got any, please tell me. The reason why I ask is because it's going to
get harder and harder to find these websites, I think. So with that in mind, I'd like to
learn more about what's out there in terms of the alt-media.
You got any alt-media websites to share, please do.
And thanks to anyone that have already shared what they knew in yesterday's thread.
Glad to be here by the way. I've known about Moon of Alabama for some time and I've
decided to drop into the comments. I didn't really keep track of all the links that you guys
posted, but I will now. Thank you.
From comment of chet380, Jul 7, 2018 7:03:08 PM (19): "Notwithstanding the counter-evidence and the strong counter-arguments, the decision by the OPCW to include references to 'chlorinated
chemical compounds' guaranteed that the 'attack' scenario would continue to be advanced.Is it possible that the UK, US and/or France
put pressure on the OPCW to make the inclusion so they would not have to admit they were wrong and that they were fooled? The fraud
of the White Helmets should have been exposed by the OPCW inspection, but this interim report will give them continued life."
Notable quotes:
"... Interestingly the MI6 outlet in Coventry, the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), does not confirm a 'gas' incident. ..."
"... The "Sarin" organophosphate use the 'rebels' claimed is thereby debunked. No degradation products of such chemicals were found. The "various chlorinated organic chemicals" are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and "chlorinated organic chemicals" will be found in any household. ..."
"... The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found. Without knowing the concentrations, which may may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion. The report includes none of the witness statements the fact finding mission took. In various TV reports the medical personal of the one hospital involved in the stunt said that none of their patients were affected by chlorine or chemical weapons. ..."
"... After the 'rebels' claimed the 'chemical attack' and published their staged videos of stacked bodies U.S. President Trump tweeted that he would retaliate for the strike. Politically he could not pull back from that even when Secretary of Defense Mattis voiced his doubts about the 'rebel' claims. Trump attacked Syria with a series of cruise missiles most of which were shot down by the Syrian air defense. A civil chemical laboratory was destroyed during the attack but no one was hurt. ..."
"... They cannot admit everything was staged. And the report is not at all clear, so anyone can give it the desired spin. ..."
"... They didn't find anything relevant. See Appendix 3 of the report. There's no mention of traces of chlorine which I would find hard to believe anyway, they refer to chloride Cl- as in NaCl (table salt) or organic chlorides, of which they do name at least one. ..."
"... The Guardian employs Olivia Solon, a digital journalist (whose specialty is in writing about and recommending particular IT consumer hardware or software products) based in California, with no knowledge or access to knowledge about Syria, its politics or history, to write an article defending the White Helmets and defame the investigative journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. That practice seems to be par for the course for The Guardian and other print and online newspapers. ..."
"... And yes, the corporate MSM is definitely profit-driven. When "news" was separate from "entertainment," there was some free press possible, but once they were combined, any imaginary wall between sponsors and newscasters was removed. ..."
"... Here in the US, CBS was founded by William Paley, who had been in charge of radio propaganda for the US Army Office of Psychological Warfare. CBS was owned by Westinghouse, which became the world's largest military contractor during WW II. ..."
"... Neither CBS and NBC ever generated even 5% of their parent companies revenues. The real profits were in consumer products and war. And so, not just their news, but all of their programming promoted world views that encouraged consumption and war. ..."
"... Almost all reporters covering international news are working for the various government and private intelligence agencies/think tanks and many domestic reporters as well. ..."
"... This has been the case for over 50 years if not a century. Many of the critical reports are likely written by the agencies/think tanks. Many CIA interns work at MSM for example and reporters are recruited as early as college if not high school through thr corporate government education system. ..."
"... Regarding comments of journalists, the problem may not always be with them. There have been countless discussions on the influence of intelligence agencies. Most people would choose to do the right thing when given the choice. However, if the choices are following orders or "suicide by nailgun", most people would choose to live another day. ..."
"... The British-created Anglo-American funded black propaganda organisation, the so-called White Helmets were the primary source for the claims of Sarin use by the SAG in Douma. In as just world, the White Helmets as proven liars would now become international pariahs. That they will still be hailed as heroes in the West and western MSM so just how sick the West and western MSM really are. Perhaps now that the OPCW is free to cast blame for "chemical weapons incidents", they should name and shame the United Kingdom for its black propaganda. ..."
"... Well, we all knew a false flag op was pending. So here it is. Also Trump is a POS. ..."
"... When the White Helmets and the rebels staged the 'Douma' chemical attack they were probably expecting that Douma would not be liberated and that no serious inspection would take place to debunk the 'fake' attack. That was bad luck for them. Contrary to the other chemical "attacks" locations, an inspection on location has taken place early enough and the masks may be falling. ..."
"... There are critically important information here from Vanessa Beelley False Flag Fail: How Syrian Civilians Derailed White Helmet 'Chemical' Stunt in Eastern Ghouta that Bernhardt has not mentioned. ..."
"... The White Helmets specifically stated that the protesters had ruined their chemical attack and ruined their communications with the UN, and that the Americans would not come to their assistance because of it. This incident explains important aspects of the false flag: ..."
"... 1) So close to impending defeat, the terrorists were really desperate to induce the Americans to save them, and really believed they would do so; ..."
"... the conflicting signals given out by the MI6 proxies SOHR I would read as a damage limitation act specifically in response to the civilian protest; ..."
"... It would appear that MI6 feared news of this protest would be spread, so that they needed to protect their proxies. ..."
"... Unfortunately, despite this information being published by Vanessa Beeley, I haven't seen any other mention of it. The protesters endangered their lives by this protest, at least one of them [or another hostage? - this is not clear] was shot dead for it, and all of them were sentenced to death. They deserve due publicity for it and it is really important to an understanding of the incident as a whole. ..."
"... Bernhardt, I am afraid I don't share your apparent confidence in this OPCW report. It is far too little and lopsided after months of investigation, and appears to be designed to test the waters for a decision confirming that chlorine was used as a weapon, and to coordinate with the MSM to prepare the ground for such a decision. In that case, the MSM reaction to the report is highly consistent with such an objective. ..."
"... Why did the the report make no caveats about the chlorine compounds, why did they include no data about concentrations, why did they emphasise the chain of custody of the (probably trivial) chrorine compound samples (and only those samples), why no information on witness testimony, why no mention of the witness testimony in the Hague, why mention (totally irrelevant) testimony of alleged witnesses in Turkey and biological samples taken in Turkey for which no plausible chain of custody exists? ..."
"... This report is a scandal, an outrage. This report itself is a false flag, it is designed to appease those observers who know the incident was a false flag by using carefully ambiguous wording, while preparing the ground for a full-blown 99% dishonest and 100% misleading report condemning the Syrian government. ..."
"... For Trump self inflicted ego wound somebody will pay. ..."
"... If the OPCW can no longer be trusted; then what? The U.S. has done an admirable job of destroying trust between countries. ..."
"... Nice article, however I tend to disagree partially on the last part, the US administration and the alleged rebels are two faces of the same coins, rebels are funded by the administration from various sources and they acr in response to commands from it, see the southern command operations where this approach of command was openly divulged by various reports and accounts. The reason for the Administration to get into Syria was to further weaken the middle eastern countries for a specific and obvious reason, and each strike and wall destroyed goes into this direction..the bigger picture explains it all.. ..."
"... So, as expected, this latest OPCW report will have no effect on the establishment narrative. The good guys vs bad guys scenario is the only approved version, and with no alternative versions being offered in the MSM, it is the one that the most people will believe. ..."
"... I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything. ..."
Syria - OPCW Issues First Report Of 'Chemical Weapon Attack' in Douma
On April 7 2018 Syrian 'rebels' claimed that the Syrian government used chlorine gas and Sarin in an attack on the besieged Douma
suburb near the Syrian capital Damascus. They published a series of videos which showed the dead bodies of mainly women and children.
During the night the incident allegedly happened Douma was hit with artillery and air strikes in retaliation for earlier deadly
attacks by some 'rebels' splinter groups on Damascus city. Jaish al-Islam, the main 'rebel' group in Douma, had already agreed to
leave towards Idleb governorate.
The claim of the 'chemical attack' was made shortly after U.S. President Trump had announced that he wanted U.S. troops to leave
Syria. It was designed to "pull him back in" which it indeed did.
Moon of Alabama published several pieces on the issue:
It seemed obvious from the very first claims of the 'gas attack' that it did not happen at all. The Syrian government had no motive
to use any chemical weapon or an irritant like chlorine in Douma. It had already won. The incident was obviously staged, like others
before it, to drag the U.S. into a new attack on Syria.
Even a prominent opposition outlet said that no 'chemical attack'
had taken place. As
noted on April
9:
Interestingly the MI6 outlet in Coventry, the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), does not confirm a 'gas' incident.
In its version of events some 40 people
died after their shelter collapsed:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights issued a higher death toll, saying at least 80 people were killed in Douma, including
around 40 who died from suffocation. But it said the suffocations were the result of shelters collapsing on people inside them.
Main stream media, which have quoted SOHR for years, now ignore it and
report of a 'chemical
attack' as if it were a proven reality.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) send a Fact Finding Mission (FFM) to Douma and investigated the
incident. Today it
published an interim report and some technical results:
OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their
degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along
with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain
of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to
draw final conclusions.
The "Sarin" organophosphate use the 'rebels' claimed is thereby debunked. No degradation products of such chemicals were found.
The "various chlorinated organic chemicals" are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and "chlorinated
organic chemicals" will be found in any household.
In the technical notes of
the OPCW report note that one of its laboratory found "dichloroacetic acid", "trichloroacetic acid", "chloral hydrate", "trichlorophenol"
and "chlorphenol" in some of the samples its fact finding mission took at the claimed incident sites. These are all substances that
are no surprise in any upbuild environment and especially within any home.
Dichloroacetic acid" is for example "a trace product
of the chlorination of drinking water". Chloral hydrate
is likewise "a minor side-product of the chlorination of water when organic residues such as humic acids are present". The other
substances are also not uncommon and of various household uses.
The other OPCW laboratory found only "No CWC-scheduled chemicals" and "2,4,6-trinitrotoluene" residues in the samples. Trinitrotoluene,
also known as TNT, is an explosive widely used in military ammunition. The second laboratory does not report the chlorinated organic
chemicals the other laboratory found.
The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found. Without knowing the concentrations,
which may may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion. The report includes none of the witness statements the fact
finding mission took. In various TV reports the medical personal of the one hospital involved in the stunt said that none of their
patients were affected by chlorine or chemical weapons.
After the 'rebels' claimed the 'chemical attack' and published their staged videos of stacked bodies U.S. President Trump
tweeted that he would retaliate for the strike. Politically he could not pull back from that even when Secretary of Defense Mattis
voiced his doubts
about the 'rebel' claims. Trump attacked Syria with a series of cruise missiles most of which were shot down by the Syrian air defense.
A civil chemical laboratory was destroyed during the attack but no one was hurt.
The now published preliminary OPCW report reinforces the doubts about the 'rebel' claims. There was no 'chemical attack' in Douma.
The incident was staged.
One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain from violent threats over incidents for which no
plausible and vetted evidence is provided.
Posted by b on July 6, 2018 at 03:23 PM |
Permalink
Thanks for this report, even though in my case you're "preaching to the choir".
I wish I could share your closing optimism: "One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain
from violent threats over incidents for which no plausible and vetted evidence is provided."
Hope springs eternal. But even though I'm not rabidly anti-Trump, I think he will remain unwilling to refrain, or is incapable
of refraining, from impulsively responding with bluster, bombast, and chauvinistic bumptiousness when his buttons are pushed,
regardless of the validity of the stimulus.
Trump, whose narcissism is second to no one's, is devoid of the introspective humility contemplated by the axiom "Fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"; his ego will not process the possibility that he can ever be fooled.
Alas! Trump is definitely a "Threaten first and ask questions later" kind of guy.
Thanks for the report b. I was surfing the net as I prepared a meal and saw that the BBC is pushing this hard.
The BBC is even writing about the April chemical weapon scam as being added proof.....sad
The elite keep trying to start a war with anyone to keep the focus off their failure as the "leaders of the free world" BS.
When are the elite going to realize their temper tantrums aren't working?
I hope they don't get their shooting war and I hope their economic war provides their final undoing.....think of the waste
of human and other resources over the past 70 years.....let alone the centuries that the private finance/property scam has been
going on.
Still, Ard-Tagesschau says the following (originally in German): "In the battles for the Syrian rebel stronghold Duma, chlorine
gas was apparently used in April. The OPCW found traces of this in gas cylinder residues."
Sure enough I agree with you B, but
for the MSM the OPCW report reads different.
They cannot admit everything was staged. And the report is not at all clear,
so anyone can give it the desired spin.
"The OPCW found traces of this in gas cylinder residues." Claiming that the OPCW found "traces of chlorine" is like claiming one
found "traces of oxygen" or "traces of hydrogen" when one found water (H2O).
The occurrence of a basic element in a compound
is not a "trace" of the basic element. That's chemistry 001. Journalists nowadays seem to lack most basics of higher education.
They didn't find anything relevant. See Appendix 3 of the report. There's no mention of traces of chlorine which I would
find hard to believe anyway, they refer to chloride Cl- as in NaCl (table salt) or organic chlorides, of which they do name at
least one.
What to expect from the 'Tagesschau' - same old, same old. They're making stuff up again, almost certainly out of willful ignorance
and bias.
@6 b
I figure it's even worse than that. They're not even asking the most basic question: Am I a competent person?
My guess is a great many of these folks avoid asking that question on purpose.
It would seem that a common (and deliberate) ploy used by the MSM these days is to use journalists with no particular knowledge,
experience or insight in an area to write articles that need that knowledge or experience.
The Guardian employs Olivia Solon, a digital journalist (whose specialty is in writing about and recommending particular
IT consumer hardware or software products) based in California, with no knowledge or access to knowledge about Syria, its politics
or history, to write an article defending the White Helmets and defame the investigative journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa
Beeley. That practice seems to be par for the course for The Guardian and other print and online newspapers.
Plus The Guardian and others rely on dubious sources like Bellingcat and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose credentials
are laughable at best, as "experts" in their chosen areas of reporting.
All the Western MSM are now entirely driven by the pursuit of sales revenue and profit and are now no different from outlets
peddling entertainment. No surprise really when news media outlets are now owned by the same individuals or corporations that
own film studios, TV stations, online media and TV channels, book and comics publishers, and games publishers.
Jen @8. Great point on the strategy of using "journalists" with no background in the topic they're tasked to 'report."
And yes, the corporate MSM is definitely profit-driven. When "news" was separate from "entertainment," there was some free
press possible, but once they were combined, any imaginary wall between sponsors and newscasters was removed.
Still, considering who owns the MSM, I'd say their main purpose is not to sell commercials, but to sell the most profitable
"products" of their owners.
Here in the US, CBS was founded by William Paley, who had been in charge of radio propaganda for the US Army Office of
Psychological Warfare. CBS was owned by Westinghouse, which became the world's largest military contractor during WW II.
NBC was owned by GE, which was also one of the largest military contractors in the world.
Neither CBS and NBC ever generated even 5% of their parent companies revenues. The real profits were in consumer products
and war. And so, not just their news, but all of their programming promoted world views that encouraged consumption and war.
Almost all reporters covering international news are working for the various government and private intelligence agencies/think
tanks and many domestic reporters as well.
This has been the case for over 50 years if not a century. Many of the critical reports are likely written by the agencies/think
tanks. Many CIA interns work at MSM for example and reporters are recruited as early as college if not high school through thr
corporate government education system.
Everyone likes to supplement their income and many are convinced its their patriotic duty to disseminate propaganda. For some
its a chance to join the elite class, even at a low level. Obviously getting the 6-8 corporate entities that own 80% of the media
to go along is not difficult especially as those who go rogue will be punished by members of the business roundtable responsible
for most advertising , which would of course dry up as punishment
Now monitoring the internet and social media with big data analytics allows almost Total Information Awareness. They can see
in real time whats working and to what extent and what is not. They can then fill holes or modify the story as needed. They know
they dont need to get 100% believability. This is why they have not shut down dissenting comments. They are useful, for now.
I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything. At
some point they will feel confident enough to simulate an alien invasion of beings capable of taking human form. This will necessitate
martial law which thw fearful will gladly accept, and a global governement led by the countries with the largest space force.
Funny how the US still needs Russian Rockets to launch satellites so its Space Force has a way to go yet. I guess I wont be around
for the fun since time is not a friend of old men
Regarding comments of journalists, the problem may not always be with them. There have been countless discussions on the influence
of intelligence agencies. Most people would choose to do the right thing when given the choice. However, if the choices are following
orders or "suicide by nailgun", most people would choose to live another day.
Speaking of experiments to monitor how many people will believe anything, some good claims from the MSM come to mind: 40% of
North Koreans are on crystal meth, the Russians killed the last clown in Aleppo, and the Breatharians (people who purportedly
survive on only air and sunlight).
thanks b... unfortunately, i tend to see it much like what @8 jen says... these folks are unsure about their next pay check and
are happy to write with a chatham house /scl / cambridge analytica slant knowing what is expected of them.. they ask no questions
and are unwilling to articulate the false flags that have shaped all this discussion of opcw and chemical attacks in syria.. in
this respect i also agree with @5 pnyx... they are unwilling or unable to raise these questions for fear of dismissal.. more and
more people recognize what a poor state the msm is in today.. that is my hope anyway..
b said:"One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain from violent threats over incidents for
which no plausible and vetted evidence is provided."
Unfortunately, probably no one here in the land of theater, will ever hear about this report. As to DJT, he'll do whatever
it takes to enhance his appearance with the morons. His learning curve only bends toward his own enhancement. To him and his minions,
truth doesn't matter...
There's unlikely to be any real investigative journalism regarding opcw reports, considering the papers in uk are owned by mega
millionaires who profit from war and the Middle East land grab.oil ect. Plus the owners featured largely in the off shore tax
haven leaks- relavent here not so much regarding tax, but what that hidden money is invested in, Gun running, slave labour, buying
rebels? It's a small world, media moguls own it.
The British-created Anglo-American funded black propaganda organisation, the so-called White Helmets were the primary source
for the claims of Sarin use by the SAG in Douma. In as just world, the White Helmets as proven liars would now become international
pariahs. That they will still be hailed as heroes in the West and western MSM so just how sick the West and western MSM really
are. Perhaps now that the OPCW is free to cast blame for "chemical weapons incidents", they should name and shame the United Kingdom
for its black propaganda.
Thanks Bevin @ 16
I do follow that site, but had'nt looked recently. Really Good, no doubt your aware of 'the canary ' good article on this subject!
Both sites I recommend to one and all.
When the White Helmets and the rebels staged the 'Douma' chemical attack they were probably expecting that Douma would not
be liberated and that no serious inspection would take place to debunk the 'fake' attack. That was bad luck for them. Contrary
to the other chemical "attacks" locations, an inspection on location has taken place early enough and the masks may be falling.
Your early call that the MSM would go with the chlorine findings to support the attack is proving true across the board --
there is not a chance that an admission of having been mistaken is going to happen.
james @13 I think it's clearly true, not just a hope, that fewer and fewer people take the media seriously. Those who still watch
mainstream and cable 'news' programs are a pretty small minority, and the MSNBC/FOX side of that is probably acknowledged even
by most of its consumers, as 'my side' comfort food rather than 'news' as we used to understand it.
The media's lock-step Western-Empire perspective _is_ frightening, but we also need to remember recent election results that
have gone against the empire's wishes. Just a couple days ago in Mexico, for example. Real alternative and real (whether socialist,
left, right, or libertarian) populist media is having an impact, I think, and we may be able to turn things around in the West
before the next world wars start.
Vanessa Beeley interviewed at least two witnesses who - seeing that the government forces were about to liberate Hamouriya
village in Douma from the terrorists under whose control they had suffered for 6 years and thereby feeling empowered - on 6th
March at 3pm decided to publicly protest against the terrorists by marching through Hamouriya carrying Syrian national flags.
They were met by members of the White Helmets and the terrorists, who blamed them explicitly for ruining their chemical weapons
false flag.
Critically importantly, the White Helmets had already released news for the claimed false flag that morning and the night before,
and they had already collected 30 dead bodies from all over Douma and brought them to the hospital, and had already started filming.
The protest critically negated the propaganda message of the false flag chemical attack - if the Syrian Army had really been
dropping chemical weapons on Hamouriya the night before with intent to kill civilian women and children, why would the civilians
immediately afterwards start marching through the city carrying Syrian national flags, and having raised the flag at key points
in the city? It makes the whole flase flag [even more] implausible. The White Helmets then wrapped one hostage in a Syrian flag
and shot him dead as a warning. Fortunately the two witnesses interviewed (and hopefully most of the protesters) were able to
escape soon afterwards with the help of the nearby Syrian Army.
The White Helmets specifically stated that the protesters had ruined their chemical attack and ruined their communications
with the UN, and that the Americans would not come to their assistance because of it. This incident explains important aspects
of the false flag:
1) So close to impending defeat, the terrorists were really desperate to induce the Americans to save them, and really
believed they would do so;
2) Having already announced the false flag the previous night and having collected so many dead bodies in preparation, the
existence of the protest creates a credibility problem for the terrorists and White Helmets, to which they seem to have responded
with various conflicting signals;
3) In particular, the conflicting signals given out by the MI6 proxies SOHR I would read as a damage limitation act specifically
in response to the civilian protest;
4) It would appear that MI6 feared news of this protest would be spread, so that they needed to protect their proxies.
Unfortunately, despite this information being published by Vanessa Beeley, I haven't seen any other mention of it. The
protesters endangered their lives by this protest, at least one of them [or another hostage? - this is not clear] was shot dead
for it, and all of them were sentenced to death. They deserve due publicity for it and it is really important to an understanding
of the incident as a whole.
Bernhardt, I hope you will update the article above to include some of Vanessa Beeley's reporting on this incident.
Bernhardt, I am afraid I don't share your apparent confidence in this OPCW report. It is far too little and lopsided after
months of investigation, and appears to be designed to test the waters for a decision confirming that chlorine was used as a weapon,
and to coordinate with the MSM to prepare the ground for such a decision. In that case, the MSM reaction to the report is highly
consistent with such an objective.
Why did the the report make no caveats about the chlorine compounds, why did they include no data about concentrations,
why did they emphasise the chain of custody of the (probably trivial) chrorine compound samples (and only those samples), why
no information on witness testimony, why no mention of the witness testimony in the Hague, why mention (totally irrelevant) testimony
of alleged witnesses in Turkey and biological samples taken in Turkey for which no plausible chain of custody exists?
Posted by: V | Jul 7, 2018 12:36:26 AM | 25 Finally, straight shooting from the OPCW.
About time...
This report is a scandal, an outrage. This report itself is a false flag, it is designed to appease those observers who
know the incident was a false flag by using carefully ambiguous wording, while preparing the ground for a full-blown 99% dishonest
and 100% misleading report condemning the Syrian government.
The correct response to this report is very loud and active and persistent protest against it.
The Russians should make very strongly worded complaints and criticisms about it both at the OPCW and at the UN (maybe they
have, I wouldn't know).
So, following your logic (which I mostly agree); what value/good are elections?
None, near as I can tell.
Time for something new?
But then I digress; what to do about false flag chemo attacks?
If the OPCW can no longer be trusted; then what? The U.S. has done an admirable job of destroying trust between countries.
żHas anyone here read Peter Ford's piece on OPCW? I believe it fits somewhere in the discussion. Unfortunate this choir is so
small. Keep writing and Protest Loudly!
Hi Nice article, however I tend to disagree partially on the last part, the US administration and the alleged rebels are two
faces of the same coins, rebels are funded by the administration from various sources and they acr in response to commands from
it, see the southern command operations where this approach of command was openly divulged by various reports and accounts. The
reason for the Administration to get into Syria was to further weaken the middle eastern countries for a specific and obvious
reason, and each strike and wall destroyed goes into this direction..the bigger picture explains it all..
... to clarify , every "regime" that threatens Israel openly is to be brought down ... Libya, Iraq,, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran
, Egypt's Nasser and the list goes on..
"Yesterday the OPCW reported that, contrary to US and UK assertions in the UN security council, there was no nerve agent attack
on jihadist-held Douma by the Syrian government, precisely as Robert Fisk was execrated by the entire media establishment for
pointing out. The OPCW did find some traces of chlorine compounds, but chlorine is a very commonly used element and you have traces
of it all over your house.
The US wants your chicken chlorinated. The OPCW said it was "Not clear" if the chlorine was weaponised, and it is plain to
me from a career in diplomacy that the almost incidental mention is a diplomatic sop to the UK, US and France, which are important
members of the OPCW.
"Trump's reaction to yet more lying claims by the UK government funded White Helmets and Syrian Observatory, a reaction of
missile strikes on alleged Syrian facilities producing the non-existent nerve agent, was foolish. May's leap for British participation
was unwise, and the usual queue of Blairites who stood up as always in Parliament to support any bombing action, stand yet again
exposed as evil tools of the military industrial complex.
"Hillary Clinton, true to form, wanted more aggressive military action than was undertaken by Trump. Hillary has been itching
to destroy Syria as she destroyed Libya. Libya was very much Hillary's war and – almost unreported by the mainstream media – NATO
bombers carried out almost 14,000 bombing sorties on Libya and devastated entire cities...."
If you put Murray, MoA, The Skwawkbox, Strategic Culture, Dissident Voice and a few of the better aggregators together you've
got a better Daily Newspaper than The Guardian or Le Monde ever was, far better.
By the way, unless I'm mistaken (it wouldn't be a first!) Ghandi was asked what he thought about Western Civilisation when
he replied that "It would be a good idea". It still is an idea worth looking into. It would look just like socialism.
@28 BM... i think it was daniel who left that link here at moa a few days ago.. i read it..
@29 BM.. i tend to agree with you, but see @6 b for more clarity...
@32 pft... it is my observation that the msm in the usa is so usa centric, they know shit about canada, or the rest of the
world.. i could be wrong, but that is my general view on what ''americans'' consume for news in the usa.. the indoctrination is
heavy.. i would like to think people like @33 V are the norm, but i mostly think people are tuned out of the news - excluding
the older generation - above 60 or 70 especially - who still consume the shit via the tv..
@41 mike.. in other words, the usa foreign policy is built around looking after israel.. most here at moa would agree with
that.. will the usa ever get it's head out of israels ass? one can hope, lol..
This one was real, but even the Aum Shinrikyo sect showed all those years ago how how difficult it is to pull off an effective
chemical weapons attack, requiring an enclosed space like the metro system. But that's never the point. Instilling mass fear and
panic, not to mention being 'news friendly' is what makes such attacks, sponsored proxy false-flag or not, so enduringly popular
. To borrow a well known ad phrase ' Once you pop, you can't stop '
Journalists nowadays seem to lack most basics of higher education. b.
Yes + they have zero comprehension of basic numbers. Amazing. (Nobody wants to read my exs..) Nowadays, they are not supposed
to have any knowledge whatsoever; they have become scribal hacks, merely write, film, show, expose, what they are told or do haphazard
copy-pasta.
They are bought servants, nah compradors, and their presence is completely useless (A.I. and some guidance, input from above
by 7 -say- very smart ppl would do the job faster and cheaper, for the whole W world) they are actors whose function is to pretend
that a 'fourth estate' is necessary to uncover facts, inform the populace, air dissenting points of view, have debates, and so
on Lies.
Aware they are past their sell-date, one can smell the desperation. The reaction is to become more subservient, toe the line,
preserve what can be, become more in-groupy and shaft colleagues who might stray away from the prescribed hyper-rigid guide-lines.
Collectively, they have fantastic potential power and means of control (network savvy, present at the switches, etc.) but they
are so dumbed down and terrified of status and monetary loss they are like deer caught in the headlights, to stay on track they
secretly pray at dawn, conjure the fates, or whatever. The mansion with pool, the ginormous mortgage, Junior, etc. in the US.
In France, the monetary aspect is less vital; being excluded from the movers and shakers, the in-ppl, the heady, sexy, wonderful
Parisian life.. no.. no.. help
Part of how a 'post-truth' environment comes about. The other driver is the underlying aim, i.e. the imposition of one narrative
over another, the Rovian creation of realities which can only be managed by wielding power violent enough to make the 'other
- the people - the adversary' accept and bow down to the proffered narrative, and never object, call out the lies. Using this
template requires careful calculations which, it appears, have gone off kilter in the US.
Maybe one should consider that there were never any Chem-WMD attacks in Syria at all (pace Seymour Hersh, heh, but that is
a personal beef of mine..) - there are always limited hangout ppl who try to cobble up one narrative with another and make a living
out o that.
So far, I'm seeing BBC (as above), al Jazeera, ABC, Reuters, Qatar Tribune twisting the report to say it was a Chlorine attack.
PressTV, RT, and Sputnik News say the report clears SAA.
The latter is an absurd "virtual crime scene" in which crack reporters claim to prove that the Syrian government used chemical
weapons on their own people.
So, as expected, this latest OPCW report will have no effect on the establishment narrative. The good guys vs bad guys
scenario is the only approved version, and with no alternative versions being offered in the MSM, it is the one that the most
people will believe.
O k see if I can help, kind of kill or cure! The shock to us all may be to much ! There is no squirrel !
They made it up, yes I know it's kind of tuff !we all looked for a squirrel they distracted us. There was no people poisoned by
Russians in Salisbury, Amesbury the chlorine attack in Syria yes made up.What the tv and papers said was a lie, to program us
all like a laptop !!!
Whilst we were out squirrel huntin, they got through half of world 3 we never noticed. They formed a dictatorship. Sold all
your urban buildings services and council houses to one an other. And devalued us all by about 60% But i'l go easy for now. Couse
from there on things went down hill !!! Warm regards
By the way, I read somewhere recently that Chlorine rapidly degrades Sarin and therefore no one would use them together. But I
can't find the reference now. Can anybody help?
47. hrc = Bloodthirsty killer; sociopath coming out the gate. Likewise. POS. Trump was not a mass murderer until a couple months
in. Didn't take him long to join the club.
It would seem that a common (and deliberate) ploy used by the MSM these days is to use journalists with no particular knowledge,
experience or insight in an area to write articles that need that knowledge or experience.
I wonder if these "news reporters" were not selected based upon their "sex appeal" to a superior?
Posted by: Pft | @10
I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything.
I agree. These zany false flag events might be designed to map the approach to an asymptote .
(In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈćsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between
the curve and the line approaches zero as one or both of the x or y coordinates tends to infinite stupidity)
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in.
From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun.
They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated -- just as it has for the last
500+ years.
In this article, we have attempted to identify the most censored stories of modern times in
Britain. We have asked the opinions of one of the most famous and celebrated journalists and
documentary film-makers of our time, a high-profile former Mi5 intelligence officer, an
investigative journalist with one of the most well-known climate-change organisations, a
veteran journalist of the Iraq war, an ex-army officer, along with the head of one of the
worlds largest charities working against injustice.
One comment from our eclectic group of experts said; "the UK has the most legally protected
and least accountable intelligence agencies in the western world so even in just that field
competition is fierce, let alone all the other cover-ups."
So true have we found this statement to be that we've had to split this article into two
categories – military and non-military, with a view that we may well categorise
surveillance and privacy on its own another time.
Without further ado – here are the most non-military censored stories in Britain since
the 1980s, in no particular order. Do bear in mind that for those with inquisitive minds, some
of these stories you will have read something about somewhere – but to the majority of
citizens, these stories will read like conspiracy theories.
Consequences of American corporate influence over British welfare reforms
The demolition of the welfare state was first suggested in 1982 by the Conservative Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Using neoliberal politics, every UK government since 1982 has
covertly worked towards that goal. It is also the political thinking used as justification for
the welfare reforms of the New Labour government, which introduced the use of the Work
Capability Assessment (WCA) for all out-of-work disability benefit claimants. Neoliberal
politics also justified additional austerity measures introduced by the Coalition government
since 2010, and the Conservative government(s) since 2015, which were destined to cause
preventable harm when disregarding the human consequences. Much of this is known and in the
public domain.
However, what is less known is a story the government have tried
very hard to gag . The American healthcare insurance system of disability denial was
adopted, as was the involvement of a US healthcare company to distance the government from the
preventable harm created by its use. The private sector was introduced on a wide scale in many
areas of welfare and social policy as New Labour adopted American social and labour market
policies – and the gravity of its effects cannot be understated.
The result? In one 11 month study 10,600 deaths were attributed to the government disability
denial system of screening, with 2,200 people dying before the ESA assessment was even
completed. Between May 2010 and February 2014, an astonishing total of
40,680 people died within 12 months of going through a government Work Capability
Assessment. The government department responsible has since refused to publish updated
mortality totals.
This political and social scandal has been censored, with the author of
THIS truly damning report in trouble with the government for publishing it.
Climate Change, what a British oil giant knew all along
For decades, tobacco companies buried evidence that smoking was deadly, the same goes for
the fossil fuel industry. As early as 1981, big oil company Shell was aware of the causes and
catastrophic dangers of climate change. In the 1980s it was acknowledging with its own research
that anthropogenic global warming was a fact. Then, as the scientific consensus became more and
more clear, it started introducing doubt and giving weight to a "significant minority" of
"alternative viewpoints" as the full implications for the company's business model became
clear.
By the mid-90s, the company started talking about "distinguished scientists" that cast
aspersions of the seriousness of climate change.
THIS REPORT provides proof of Shell's documentation including emails of what they knew and
what they were hiding from the public domain. One document in 1988 confirms that: "By the time
the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to
reduce the effects or even stabilise the situation."
It was not until 2007 that scientific research eventually took a grip of the problem and
proved what was known all along. However, as Shell did say – it's probably too late to
take effective countermeasures now anyway. There is still persistent quoting of climate science
deniers by the fossil fuel industries.
Government Surveillance
In 2016, the UK was identified as the most
extreme surveillance state in the Western world. However, legislation really only came
about to legalise its use because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. Prior to that, the
British government had created a secret 360-degree mass surveillance architecture that no-one,
including most members of parliament, knew anything about. And much of it has since been deemed
illegal by the highest courts in both Britain and the European Union.
From operation Optic Nerve which took millions of sexually explicit images of an unknowing
public through their devices to a hacking operation called Gemalto – where GCHQ stole the
keys to a global encryption system with 700 million subscribers. The unaccountable spymasters
of the UK have undertaken breathtaking operations of illegality with absolute impunity.
Some other programmes included; Three Smurfs
– an operation to turn on any mobile device so it could listen to or activate the camera
covertly on mobile phones. XKeyScore was basically a Google search engine for spies to find any
data about anyone. Upstream and Tempora hacked into the worlds main cable highway, intercepting
everything and anything globally with a leaked presentation slide from GCHQ on this programme
expressly stating they were intent on "Mastering the Internet". Royal Concierge identified diplomatic
hotel reservations so GCHQ could organise a surveillance operation against dignitaries either
domestic or foreign, in advance.
In truth, Britain is classed as an endemic surveillance state and right now, we only know
what has been uncovered by whistleblowers. This is why people like Julian Assange, Edward
Snowden and others are nothing less than political prisoners of Western governments. They don't
want you to know what they know about you. They also don't want you to know about them, which
is why the architecture is there in the first place. It is not for catching terrorists because
if it was the courts would not deem these surveillance systems as illegal.
Evidence-Based Medical Studies
Over the last few years, medical professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for
many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current
editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected
peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps
half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid
exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for
pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards
darkness."
Across the pond, Dr
Marcia Angell , a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
(NEMJ), which is also considered another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical
journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published
or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no
pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine".
Many newspapers in Britain take the opportunity to indulge in some shameless click baiting
and report completely false stories simply to gain visitor numbers onto their website –
as in this example by the Mail Online HERE
or
HERE.
The Skripal poisoning and Pablo Millar
D-notice's (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) are used by the British state to
censor the publication of potentially damaging news stories. They are issued to the mainstream
media to withhold publication of damaging information. One such case was the widespread use of
D-notices regarding the British ex-spy deeply involved in the Skripal/Novichok poisoning case
in Salisbury.
Mainstream journalists, the press and broadcast media were issued with D-notices in respect
of a former British intelligence officer called Pablo Miller. Miller was an associate of
Christopher Steele, first in espionage operations in Russia and more recently in the activities
of Steele's private intelligence firm,
Orbis Business Intelligence .
Steele was responsible for compiling the Trump–Russia dossier, comprising 17 memos
written in 2016 alleging misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign
and the Putin administration. The dossier paid for by the Democratic Party, claimed that Trump
was compromised by evidence of his sexual proclivities (golden shower anyone?) in Russia's
possession. Steele was the subject of an earlier D-notice, which unsuccessfully attempted to
keep his identity as the author of the dossier a secret.
Millar is reported to be Skripal's handler in Salisbury and if Miller and by extension,
Skripal himself were involved in Orbis' work on the highly-suspect Steele-Trump dossier, which
is thought to be the case (for all sorts of reasons – including these D-notices)
alongside representatives of British and possibly US intelligence, then the motivations for the
attempted assassination on the ex-Russian double agent was very wide at best. As it turned out,
blame could not be pinned on Russia's intelligence service, the FSB, no matter how hard the
government tried. This particular part of the Skripal poisoning story remains buried by the
mainstream media.
The City of London – A global crime scene
For over a hundred years the Labour party tried in vain to abolish the City of London and
its accompanying financial corruption. In 1917, Labour's new rising star Herbert Morrison, the
grandfather of Peter Mandelson made a stand and failed, calling it the "devilry of modern
finance." And although attempt after attempt was made throughout the following decades, it was
Margaret Thatcher who succeeded by abolishing its opponent, the Greater London Council in
1986.
Tony Blair went about it another way and offered to reform the City of London in what turned
out to be a gift from God. He effectively gave the vote to corporations which swayed the
balance of democratic power away from residents and workers. It was received by its opponents
as the greatest retrograde step since the peace treaty of 1215, Magna Carta. The City won its
rights through debt financing in 1067, when William the Conqueror acceded to it and ever since
governments have allowed the continuation of its ancient rights above all others.
The consequence? It now stands as money
launderer of the world , the capital of global crime scene with Britain referred to by the
global criminal fraternity to be the most corrupt country in the world.
A 'watchman' sits at the high table of parliament and is its official
lobbyist sitting in the seat of power right next to the Speaker of the House who is
"charged with ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded." The job is to seek out
political dissent that might arise against the City.
The City of London has its own private funding and will 'buy-off' any attempt to erode its
powers – any scrutiny of its financial affairs are put beyond external inspection or
audit. It has it's own police force – and laws. Its dark and shadowy client list
includes; terrorists, drug barons, arms dealers, despots, dictators, shady politicians,
corporations, millionaires and billionaires – most with something to hide. The shocking
Panama Papers, Paradise Papers and Lux Leaks barely scratching the surface
even with their almost unbelievable revelations of criminality.
Keith Bristow Director-General of the UK's National Crime Agency
said in June 2015 that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering
operations was "a serious strategic threat to Britain." And whilst much of this activity is
indeed published – the scale of it is not. It is now believed by many investigative
journalists that the City of London is managing "trillions in ill-gotten gains" – not
billions as we have all been told.
State propaganda – manipulating minds, controlling the internet
Reading this you would think this was the stuff of a conspiracy theory – sadly, it's
not. The government, through its spying agent GCHQ developed its own set of software tools to
infiltrate the internet to shape what people see, hear and read, with the ability to rig online
polls and psychologically manipulate people on social media. This was what Glenn Greenwald of
The Intercept confirmed through the Snowden files in 2014. It was not about surveillance
but about manipulating public opinion in ever more Orwellian ways.
These 'tools' now constitute some of the most startling methods of propaganda delivery
systems and internet deception programmes known to mankind. What the Snowden files show are
that the government can change the outcome of online polls (codenamed Underpass), send mass
delivery of emails or SMS messages (Warpath) at will, disrupt video-based websites (Silverlord)
and have tools to permanently disable PC accounts. They can amplify a given message to push a
chosen narrative (GESTATOR), increase traffic to any given website" (GATEWAY) and have the
ability to inflate page views on websites (SLIPSTREAM). They can crash any website (PREDATORS
FACE), reduce page views and distort public responses, spoof any email account and telephone
calls they like. Visitors to WikiLeaks are tracked and monitored as if an inquiring mind is now
against the law.
Don't forget, the government has asked no-one for permission to do any of this and none of
this has been debated in parliament where representative democracy is supposed to be taking
place. There is no protective legislation for the general public and no-one is talking about or
debating these illegal programmes that taxpayers have been given no choice to fund –
costing billions. This is government sponsored fake news and public manipulation programmes on
a monumental scale.
Chris Huhne, a former cabinet minister and member of the national security council until
2012 said – "when it comes to the secret world of GCHQ, the depth of my 'privileged
information' has been dwarfed by the information provided by Edward Snowden to The
Guardian."
The Guardian's offices were then visited by MI5 and the Snowden files were ordered to be
destroyed under threats that if they didn't, it would be closed down – a sign of
British heavy-handedness reminiscent of the East-German Stasi.
Censorship – Spycatcher
'Spycatcher' was a truly candid autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer published in
1987. Written by Peter Wright, a former MI5 officer, it was published first in Australia after
being banned by the British government in 1985. Its allegations proved too much for the
authorities to allow it to be in the public domain.
In an interesting twist of irony, the UK government attempted to halt the book's Australian
publication. Malcolm Turnbull, current Prime Minister of Australia, was a lawyer at the time
and represented the publisher that defeated the British government's suppression orders against
Spycatcher in Australia in September 1987, and again on appeal in June 1988. This is the same
man that refuses to assist Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, from his hellhole existence
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
The book details plans of the MI6 plot to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser during the
Suez Crisis; of joint MI5-CIA plotting against British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and of
MI5's eavesdropping on high-level Commonwealth conferences. Wright also highlights the methods
and ethics of the spying business.
Newspapers printed in England, attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal
allegations were served gag orders. If they continued, they were tried for contempt of court.
However, the book proved so popular many copies were smuggled into England. In 1987, the Law
Lords again barred reportage of Wright's allegations or sale of books.
The ruling was then overturned, but Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale
of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled
that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its
own newspapers. The book has sold more than two million copies. In 1995, Wright died a
millionaire from proceeds of his book.
Censorship – The Internet
To the inquisitive and knowledgeable, censorship of the internet by the British government
is not news. In addition, there have been many reports, especially from independent outlets
complaining about search engines and social media platforms censoring oppositional and
dissenting voices.
Already described earlier in this article is the involvement of the authorities in
strategies to manipulate public opinion and disseminate false narratives in their aims for
control of the internet itself.
A few months ago, the government changed the law to block online content deemed as either
pornographic or of an extremist nature to protect those under 16 years of age. It was
anticipated that approximately 50 websites would be banned altogether. What subsequently
happened was that thousands of websites
disappeared from the internet with no court orders, injunctions, notices or justification.
Even finding out which websites are on that list is a secret.
Over time, like many pieces of legislation that has been abused by the state, websites and
online content that the government of the day does not like will have the perfect tool to
simply press the 'delete' button, pretty much as they have already started doing.
Soon after the Second World War, some of America's richest people began setting up
a
network of thinktanks to promote their interests. These purport to offer dispassionate
opinions on public affairs. But they are more like corporate lobbyists, working on behalf of
those who founded and fund them. These are the organisations now running much of the
Trump administration . These same groups are now running much of Britain. Liam Fox and what
was the Atlantic Bridge and the
Adam Smith Institute are good examples.
They have control of the Conservative party and are largely responsible for years of work
that steered Britain through the EU referendum that ended with Brexit. Tens of £millions
have been spent, mostly undisclosed on making this dream to exploit Britain and its people a
reality. In fact, almost everything in this article is about such organisations. Those hugely
powerful individuals that own search engines and social media platforms along with the banking
industry, the pharmaceutical and medical business, the fossil fuel and arms industries –
they have reached a pinnacle of unprecedented corporate power.
Some of those fully censored stories pushed below the radar by these corporations include;
how over 100,000
EU citizens die every year because of lobbying against workplace carcinogens, how
corporate profits and taxes are hidden, the Tory-Trump plan to
kill food safety with Brexit – to name but a few. And don't forget the corporate
media who are complicit. There are a handful of offshore billionaires that have the ability to
decide what millions should read or see.
The Adam Smith Institute referred to earlier is a good example. It is a mouthpiece for
right-wing extreme neoliberal capitalists. With a turnover of over £130 million and an
operating profit of nearly £17 million, it has received millions of pounds in UK
government funding. That is taxpayers money being used against taxpayers because the ASI does
not believe in the likes of the NHS or civil society in general.
Talking of Dark Money – Brexit and the climate deniers
We recently reported about a
transatlantic network of lobbyists pushing against action on climate change and (latterly)
for Brexit? This group are all based out of one building around the corner from the Palace of
Westminster.
What is much less known is that more recently, these
groups have
lobbied for a Hard Brexit , hoping the UK's withdrawal from the EU will lead to a weakening
of those environmental regulations that hinder future profits. These same groups are also
behind the Tory-DUP pact , currently keeping Theresa May in her job while allowing
hard-line Northern Irish social conservatives to dictate significant parts of the UK's
political agenda, themselves climate change deniers. These are just some of Britain's most
censored stories. There are so many of them that we have had to categorise them, which says
something about how democracy, free speech, civil liberty and human rights are performing in
Britain right now. truepublica.org.uk
"... she's following the lead of the UK's evil intelligence agencies which are waging a psychological and economic war on Russia and Putin just because the oligarchs in the West don't like Putin doing good things for Russia. ..."
On behalf of this side of the pond, I would like to formally apoligize for calling Mr.
Blair, Mr. Bush's poodle. I am also certain that Ms. Skripal, sorry Ms. May, with her fiery
independence, is nobody's poodle either.
Tom , July 5, 2018 at 5:42 am
R U kidding me? Ms. May is a poodle for the UK's intelligence agencies i.e. MI5 and MI6.
The swift movement of her to get on board with the totally discredited blaming of Novichok
and Putin/Russia for the nerve agent attack on the Skripals means she is very evil -- she's
following the lead of the UK's evil intelligence agencies which are waging a psychological
and economic war on Russia and Putin just because the oligarchs in the West don't like Putin
doing good things for Russia.
"... Novichok , the magic Russian military nerve agent jumped on another couple after it stayed low-key for weeks, in order to recover from the humiliation of being unable to kill the Skripals, in spite of being "the most powerful and deadly military agent". ..."
"... I May be wrong regarding this theory, but it is highly unlikely. ..."
The former empire known as Great Britain, was struck again by bad luck:
Novichok , the magic Russian military nerve agent jumped on another couple after it
stayed low-key for weeks, in order to recover from the humiliation of being unable to kill
the Skripals, in spite of being "the most powerful and deadly military agent".
Britain lost the Empire's colonies, its greatness (even if this was built on murder and
theft) , its economic power, and now has lost its mind and its shame .
Britain is currently a pedophile island, full of third world immigrants and given refuge
to all the dictators, criminals, crooks and terrorists in the world. It is laundering money
through its City of London, and this is the only thing keeping that island afloat. It's a
huge latrine with a Crown on top, as I like to describe it.
Now the Russians are randomly "poisoning" ordinary British subjects, because this is what
Brits are. The British government and media immediately knew it was Novichok and the Russians
were behind it. Maybe even Mr. Putin found time to do this.
The Russian team just qualified in the FIFA World Cup quarters ; like Britain did after
beating Columbia. Mr. Putin is practicing on poor Brits. If the Russian team will meet the
Brits in the finals, he may pull a Novichok on them and brazenly win this way, the
finals.
I May be wrong regarding this theory, but it is highly unlikely.
"... Craig Murray pointed out that when actions are discussed or carried out, strategies laid out, Trident is never even mentioned. ..."
"... Britain is a failing Western Democracy just as the US is -- they are getting desperate and trying all kinds of stuff under the general heading of evil Russia. Britain is pathetic when you think about it hollow empty country with no vision or concern for anything but the elites. The entire Western democratic ideal has failed utterly, we live in a multi-polar world now the SCO is far more important than the G7 but May probably doesn't even know what it stands for. Without its association with the US and out of the EU the UK will be about as important as Uruguay or Nauru. ..."
"... I can only conclude the the Ruling Class in GB looks at its own public as completely dimwitted morons, as they apparently believe them willing to swallow this crap. ..."
"... It is just over a week since OPCW was given more powers. Put forward by Britain and backed by the usual coalition of the killing. Pulling another Skripal so soon after that is more than a bit sus. ..."
"... And the unknown substance is now Novichuk. But that 4 day lag, not to worry, 1 day ago the suspects were already identified tying in with the Skripals. The 2 Hitmen with close ties to Russia. ..."
"... Take it from me 90 percent of the British public are dim witted morons that's official from me! No exaggeration! Half just regurgitate what the tv / papers say with out question or thought. The other half have just switched off entirely. Tell them 8,000000 could die in Yemen. There eyes glaze over. ..."
"... Britain was never a democracy. It was masquerading as one in order to placate the unwashed masses. They're definitely in panic mode and whatever they do makes them look insane. ..."
"... I love Guerrero's concept that these stories are prepared more like Novellas... especially the implication that the script for the next episode is written after gauging reaction to the former episode. ..."
"... "I think the take home point is to not live near a chemical weapons lab." Methinks it may be worse than that: just don't live in Britain, these days. Says this sympathetic anglophile. ..."
"... The British can't seem to put the lid back on the vial btw was this the same one used by US Secr of State Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN Security Council before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? The Ayatollahs of Persia be forewarned! ..."
"... After researching everything I could find on Novichok, the only rational and logical conclusion one can draw is the Skripals and this latest couple should be dead. The sad part of this incident and the Skripal affair is how many people actually believe the government's claims. ..."
"... Imagine being Yulia Skripal at this moment. She had a job, a boyfriend, a dog and a home in Russia she may never be able to see again, because the UK government cannot allow her to return home and spill the beans on this sordid affair. If their is any justice in this world, every rational individual should be demanding "FREE Yulia"! ..."
"... I don't think this latest version of the novichok case helps the British case at all as it strongly suggests that there is something else out there killing people than a military grade nerve agent. ..."
"... As for the report in the Daily Telegraph "Salisbury couple are fresh victims of the Novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal", I suspect that is pure bullshit. ..."
"... I've been wondering how The Swamp's inner circle are feeling about the likelihood that Trump and Putin will get along like a house (of cards) on fire. It looks as though the reptiles are more than just a little bit worried... ..."
"... The capacity of some people to believe these lies is seemingly limitless, otherwise they would not bother. Must be hundreds of people fall ill and require emergency treatment each day. Are the Russians to be suspects in each illness requiring workers to go into home wear Hazmat gear and shut down the neighborhood pending tests? ..."
British Government Peddles Warmed Over Novichok Muck
It seems that Theresa May felt a need to stoke some more
Russia hate :
Just as the World Cup had forced the British media to grudgingly acknowledge the obvious
truth that Russia is an extremely interesting country inhabited, like everywhere else, by
mostly pleasant and attractive people, we have a screaming reprise of the "Salisbury
incident" dominating the British media.
All British media outlets report of a middle-aged British couple, Dawn Sturgess and Charlie
Rowley, who fell seriously ill in Amesbury, a town near Salisbury and near the British chemical
weapon site Proton Down. The couple were transported to the Salisbury hospital. They were first
suspected to have taken drugs but the police now
speaks (vid) of a "potential exposure to an unknown substance" and that they "remain in a
critical condition".
The parallels to the poisoning of the British-Russian spy Sergej Skripal and his daughter
four month ago are obvious. The government alleged they were poisoned by a nerve agent of the
Novichok series. Like back in March the British government will soon name the evildoer of this
new drama.
The most curious issue of the current case is that it happened Saturday morning and that
since a lot of local police action took place. But news of the incident emerged only early
today. None of the pieces I read explains the four day long lack of reporting. The British
government obviously prohibited all news of the case until early today and now prohibits to
explain the censoring.
Why?
A "friend of the couple", who has been together with them, was
interviewed by several outlets:
Here's a link to Newsnow's aggregator for the "major incident". FYI: Newsnow and Wikipedia
are fighting the Copyright Directive of the European Parliament tomorrow (July 5th) - so get
the news while you can...
Sam Hobson said: "His eyes were wide open and red, his pupils were like pinpricks."
Yes, exposition to some toxic agents can make the pupils like pinpricks (and newspapers said
that novichok has this effect), but this contraction is not so easy to note, because the
pupil is not the whole iris and the iris doesn't contract.
"A police spokesman said: "At the moment it is not a police incident it is being led by
the fire and the ambulance. It appears that there are three people who have taken drugs
and had a medical incident. They have all been taken to hospital."
A cordon was put in place as a precaution but police say there is "no danger" to anyone
else in the area.
A spokesman for South Western Ambulance Service later told the Journal that only one
patient had been taken to Salisbury District Hospital.
Might it be useful to think in terms of the structuring of TV-novelas? Are such media content events designed for a similiar/identical purpose? Unlike a literary novel, a soap opera series can be produced without having
an idea as to how artistic unity will be achieved with some universal meaning.
Are serial tear-jerker episodes the product of private storyboard conferences? Their requirements would be much simpler and less demanding than those of art. Each episode ends with the equivalent of a lewd embrace of an illicit couple viewed
by an interested, emotionally involved third-party who happens to come in the door.
(this point-of-view would be that of peeping-tom reflex of a mass-media consumer)
The camera is focusing mostly on skin, and a tear in the eye of the intruder, or
else it is a glare of rage... An advantage to the commercial TV content producers
is that they would be able to gauge reaction before publishing succeeding episodes.
Is it the story of some homeless recreational drug users who were accidently poisoned
by a dose of novichalk that Putin intended for a spy sheltering in the British isles
accidently deposited as spare-change into guitar-case of strung-out subway musician...
Maybe it is the case that cops are trained to look at pupils and can easily determine their
size. I could never do that and I doubt anyone who says so without being trained to do so,
and eve then eyesight and lighting needs to be close to to ideal.
Britain must be desperate or they really believe they are pulling this off. They must be
getting backing from factions in Washington, they must have unspoken permission for this.
Britain doing its humble part in the Russia demonizing to support Trident spending.
Craig Murray pointed out that when actions are discussed or carried out, strategies laid
out, Trident is never even mentioned.
Britain is a failing Western Democracy just as the US is -- they are getting desperate and
trying all kinds of stuff under the general heading of evil Russia. Britain is pathetic when
you think about it hollow empty country with no vision or concern for anything but the
elites. The entire Western democratic ideal has failed utterly, we live in a multi-polar
world now the SCO is far more important than the G7 but May probably doesn't even know what
it stands for. Without its association with the US and out of the EU the UK will be about as
important as Uruguay or Nauru.
So, uhm. How does a door handle on Skripal's front door end up contaminating the area near
the bar. Legit curious to see how they'll spin this to tie it all together now
Now that me being an ex-Junkie is out in the open here, i will provide some possible
explanations:
-Contaiminated Class A drugs: Heroin sold on the street is maximum 10% heroin, and 90%
various more or less toxic filler stuff. That may be strychnin (Which is used as rat poison,
and fits the symptoms well expect for hallucinating, valium or related opiates, paracetamol,
aspirin, or 1000 other chemicals the dealer has lying around.
-"Legal highs": in UK and in EU, those new synthetic drugs that are marketed as legal
substitute for cannabis, XTC, cocaine etc. are quite popular, and they are highly dangerous
because of their synthetic nature, and are known to cause severe health problems up to death.
In prisons also in UK those are popular, because inmates can pass drug tests easily. This
couple seems to have prison and hard drugs experience, and is therefore likely, to have known
or used those substances.
Additionally, being homeless, drug users/addicts, they are likely to have trouble with
police, and are an easy target for manipulation by intelligence operatives.
And why should evil Putin try to kill some UK Junkies?
Even BBC will have a pretty hard time to spin this..
Oh, goody!
Now we can have another round of UK authorities spewing ominous ambiguities, full of
Russia-blaming sound and fury, in the Gorgon PM and her rotten Tory government's ongoing
desperate struggle to keep its depraved nose above water.
I can't wait for UK Village Idiot Laureate Boris Johnson to provide another definitive
briefing.
Meanwhile, hmm... I suspect one of those lost, stolen, strayed, or liquidated Skripal pets
might be the perpetrator here.
I certainly agree that this story is worth reporting as farce . At this stage,
though, I hope people will resist that catnip-like intoxication of sifting through the
allegations and factoids to speculate on what it's "really" all about.
I wish this latest afflicted pair well, though. And just to flout my own suggestion and
engage in hypotheticals-- who knows, maybe next thing we know the UK government will pay top
dollar pound to purchase the crime-scene house!
no one really believes the uk anymore... if this doesn't make them a laughing stock,
nothing will..apparently people like bad re-runs and are happy to watch them.. this is the new 2018
version of coronation street i guess..
Today I was totally surprised. Headline in The Guardian: There is a cloud hanging over this World Cup and Fifa must not ignore it
An otherwise brilliant World Cup has been cheapened by the kind of histrionics witnessed in
England's game with Colombia and they have become a cancer in the game
Imagine: nothing in the article refers to Russia! Additionally "otherwise brilliant World
Cup".
I still stick with the food poisoning hypothesis (that doctor's letter sealed the deal for
me).
Both were near the restaurant the Skripals went right before they showed their symptoms.
They were homeless people. The simplest explanation is that they ate the same poisoned batch
in the garbage of the restaurant; or that the restaurant has an unreliable supplier, which
gave them more than one poisoned batch, or the restaurant simply pushes its luck with spoiled
food which, in seafood case, can result in some kind of toxins liberation (the practice of
recycling expired and sometimes even rotten expensive ingredients is common in sofisticated
restaurants).
In the case of the Skripals, the British government got lucky they were Russians, and
seized the opportunity. I don't see how they're going to use this now, since both victims are
British. Unless they want to declare war.
He described taking Mr Rowley to collect a prescription from Boots in Amesbury and on
to eat lunch at Amesbury Baptist Church fair, before returning to his friend's home in
Muggleton Road.
Boots, the church and the green outside it are among several sides in the town and nearby
Salisbury that have been cordoned off by police.
Mr Hobson said Mr Rowley started falling ill around four hours after Ms Sturgess was taken
to hospital, while they were preparing clothes to take to her. "He felt ill and went for a shower. Then his eyes went bloodshot and like two pin pricks,
he began garbling incoherently and I could tell he was hallucinating.
"He was making weird noises and acting like a zombie. It was a zombie-like state. He
slumped against the wall."
Mr Hobson said he called an ambulance and that when paramedics arrived they initially
believed the illness was drugs-related because of his friend's struggle with
addiction.
There are a plethora of substances that have those effects. Novichock is not one. That
just kills you, straight away. No passing out, no hallucinating, and definitely no park
benches. Done. Finished. Dead.
Even cyanide kills very quickly. Although Jim Jones might not agree. If anybody wanted to
kill anybody else through poisoning, they could do it very easily. Ratex (strychnine), takes
days, weeks to kill. Whoever adds that to their product would be killing their market anyway.
Capitalism hasn't gone full circle yet...
Yhis "poisoning" meme is not funny anymore, nor comical, that has worn off. It is in fact
tragic. It is tragic that the lies are so stupid, thick and unbelievable, that the whole
narrative is so crudely pieced together, that it make Pravda' 1970 articles look like
Voltaire's writings.
I can only conclude the the Ruling Class in GB looks at its own public as completely
dimwitted morons, as they apparently believe them willing to swallow this crap.
It is just over a week since OPCW was given more powers. Put forward by Britain and backed by
the usual coalition of the killing. Pulling another Skripal so soon after that is more than a
bit sus.
First post here - the only blog worth the time and effort to contribute to in my
opinion. Seems to me that as the UK and friends bought the OPCW last week, this incident has been
strategically timed so that the OPCW can investigate the 'poisoning' and apportion blame to
Russia just in time for the WC final, or am I being too cynical?
Thanks b for catching the 4 days lag in timeline.
Early morning, July 4th, British time, it was on the Daily Express as "Breaking News" as
in just happening. And the unknown substance is now Novichuk. But that 4 day lag, not to worry, 1 day ago the suspects were already identified tying in
with the Skripals. The 2 Hitmen with close ties to Russia.
UK Police Allege Two Hitmen 'With Close Ties to Russia' Involved in SkripalsLINK
Britain and its allies continue to blame Moscow for being behind the March 2018 attack on
former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter with what UK experts
claim was the A234 nerve agent, although the accusations have not been substantiated.
Russian authorities vehemently reject the allegations as groundless.
The Sun has cited sources in Scotland Yard as saying that "a two-man hit team with close
ties to Russia" orchestrated the alleged poisoning of ex-Russian security agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the UK earlier this year.
Take it from me 90 percent of the British public are dim witted morons that's official from
me! No exaggeration! Half just regurgitate what the tv / papers say with out question or
thought. The other half have just switched off entirely. Tell them 8,000000 could die in
Yemen. There eyes glaze over.
Britain was never a democracy. It was masquerading as one in order to placate the unwashed
masses. They're definitely in panic mode and whatever they do makes them look insane.
I find it amusing there is no mention on why China is not part of the G7/8. If you believe
the official narrative that China's economy is the second largest in the World, then one
would think China would have a seat at the table. I was half expecting Russia's seat to be
given to China to create a wedge between China and Russia. But we all know why.
James. How I wish nobody believed these fairy tales anymore.
I love Guerrero's concept that these stories are prepared more like Novellas... especially
the implication that the script for the next episode is written after gauging reaction to the
former episode.
One of the witnesses in the BBC article I read reported believing the gas leak story
because electricity to the neighborhood had been cut off. Wonder what that's about?
Did y'all catch "
False Flag Fail: How Syrian Civilians Derailed White Helmet 'Chemical' Stunt in Eastern
Ghouta?"
ah, well...the verdict is in: 'Wiltshire pair poisoned by nerve agent novichok, say police;
Substance deemed responsible for severe illness of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley'
"Basu added: "I would add that the complex investigation into the attempted murders of Yulia
and Sergei remains ongoing and detectives continue to sift through and assess all the
available evidence and are following every possible lead to identify those responsible, for
what remains a reckless and barbaric criminal act."
"I think the take home point is to not live near a chemical weapons lab." Methinks it may be worse than that: just don't live in Britain, these days. Says this sympathetic anglophile.
UK Nerve Center Porton Down: 'Putin Strikes Again!'
The British can't seem to put the lid back on the vial btw was this the same one used by
US Secr of State
Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN Security Council before the
invasion and occupation of Iraq? The Ayatollahs of Persia be forewarned!
Must have forgotten to scrub the home front door knop of the Skripals or was Yulia's
luggage returned via FedEx? Sloppy work by British Intelligence
Lightning never strikes twice, except near Porton Down. In fact, this second case will
prove the first case was bogus. Were the two KGB agents from the Cold War still around?
After researching everything I could find on Novichok, the only rational and logical
conclusion one can draw is the Skripals and this latest couple should be dead. The sad part
of this incident and the Skripal affair is how many people actually believe the government's
claims.
Imagine being Yulia Skripal at this moment. She had a job, a boyfriend, a dog and a home
in Russia she may never be able to see again, because the UK government cannot allow her to
return home and spill the beans on this sordid affair. If their is any justice in this world,
every rational individual should be demanding "FREE Yulia"!
Oh, but a communist dictatorship can't be in a club with the superior Western Democracies.
Just because they lifted over 700 million people out of poverty who tonight have something to
eat while Western Democracy is starving millions of people deliberately in Yemen, clearly
communists don't understand the free market.
Western Liberal Democracy is an utter and contemptible failure.
That was me - I was being facetious as Putin is not into gangsterism unlike Obama,
Cameron, May, Macron etc.
I don't think this latest version of the novichok case helps the British case at all as it
strongly suggests that there is something else out there killing people than a military grade
nerve agent.
Amesbury is about eight miles from Salisbury and I just can't see how a limited
release of a chemical would create a hot spot several miles away and almost four months
later. A few days later perhaps but not almost four months although I doubt that'd stop some wanker a bellingcat coming up with some dumb theory that's picked up by the MSM.
As for the report in the Daily Telegraph "Salisbury couple are fresh victims of the
Novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal", I suspect that is pure bullshit.
I've been wondering how The Swamp's inner circle are feeling about the likelihood that Trump
and Putin will get along like a house (of cards) on fire. It looks as though the reptiles are
more than just a little bit worried...
The capacity of some people to believe these lies is seemingly limitless, otherwise they
would not bother.
Must be hundreds of people fall ill and require emergency treatment each day. Are the
Russians to be suspects in each illness requiring workers to go into home wear Hazmat gear
and shut down the neighborhood pending tests?
Ghost ship @ 39
Thanks for owning up to that joke ! Hell in these times a bit of humour is good therapy. So
can I stop digging my bunker now !
On a serious note- whether this latest incident proves to be drug over dose or nerve agent is
pretty secondary to how it's being used to beat the Russians with. What this actually is,is
dog whistle politics. A deliberate attempt again to ferment Hate for Russia in the eyes of
the British public. The only trick they know is hate.
The former empire known as Great Britain, was struck again by bad luck:
Novichok , the magic Russian military nerve agent jumped on another couple after it stayed
low-key for weeks, in order to recover from the humiliation of being unable to kill the
Skripals, in spite of being "the most powerful and deadly military agent".
Britain lost the Empire's colonies, its greatness (even if this was built on murder and
theft) , its economic power, and now has lost its mind and its shame .
Britain is currently a pedophile island, full of third world immigrants and given refuge to
all the dictators, criminals, crooks and terrorists in the world.
It is laundering money through its City of London, and this is the only thing keeping that
island afloat.
It's a huge latrine with a Crown on top, as I like to describe it.
Now the Russians are randomly "poisoning" ordinary British subjects, because this is what
Brits are.
The British government and media immediately knew it was Novichok and the Russians were
behind it.
Maybe even Mr. Putin found time to do this.
The Russian team just qualified in the FIFA World Cup quarters ; like Britain did after
beating Columbia.
Mr. Putin is practicing on poor Brits.
If the Russian team will meet the Brits in the finals, he may pull a Novichok on them and
brazenly win this way, the finals.
I May be wrong regarding this theory, but it is highly unlikely.
The woman has the same hairline (off her forehead) and the shape of the man's face looks a
reasonable match.
The CCTV is from a local gym and it was reported, back in March, that the police were only
interested in that part of the CCTV. They must have known who these people were for a long
time, which makes the 4 day delay even more ridiculous.
Can you imagine if they follow this up with another one in Syria? That would be too stupid
but at this point not unfathomable. Seems like they would have tried to make us forget about
Novichok and the lies that were told by May and the MSM about it being something only Russia
could possibly produce. I guess when nobody is held accountable for spreading dangerous
criminal misinformation like that than they just try it again. Even now that there is still
zero evidence and no suspects in the Skirpal incident, none of the countries who expelled
diplomats have apologized and the news hasn't stopped referring to Russia as the only
culprit, so why not give it another go I suppose? Anything to put some smear on the World Cup
maybe, though the details of this story don't seem to make sense yet. As far as Syria, the
NeoCons like Bolton maybe panicking if the rumors that the Syrian government has made some
preliminary deals in regards to lite-reunification and a peace plan with the YPG/SDF. They
may do a "back to back" again and do something drastic in Syria while blaming both on Russia
indirectly..
I've been expecting another Steele dossier. If England make the finals it wouldn't surprise
me if the team get propositioned by some attractive ladies. Of course they will gallantly
resist.
@30 /31 daniel... one can dream, lol... thanks for the videos.. teh vanessa beeley one is
very good.. which brings me to the comment peter mentioned on a previous thread, or maybe
there were a few mentioning it.. the changes to the opcw - to quote the keyphrase from the
usa daily propaganda briefing yesterday "The decision calls on the technical secretariat to
establish arrangements for identifying the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks in Syria
by using all potentially relevant information..." which essentially means this... all the
money the usa/uk have spent on propaganda to fund the white helmets, syrian civil defense,
'save our syria', chatham house and etc etc - will be accepted as fact, unless proven
otherwise... this will be the grounds for making war on syria with macron, may and trump
being the good poodles for saudi arabia and israel, that they continue to be.. well - that is
what i get from that..
@34 flamingo - thanks for that! just when you think britian can't get any more crazy and
whacked out then it already is - this comes along... a better view on britian at this point
is the whole country has been subject to some form of mind altering drug.. we are witnessing
the byproduct in their msm and political leadership vacuum...
In this episode, we are joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersh who exposed
NATO nation war crimes of the military-industrial complex. From Abu Ghraib prison in the
Anglo-American war on Iraq to the Mee Lai Massacre, Sy Hersh has exerted a damning scepticism
of the official line. His new book "Reporter - A Memoir" is out now.
What does Seymour say about 9/11? Anyone, including seymour Hersh and Noam Chomski, isn't
worth a damn if they gloss over 9/11. If he's written a book about Dick Cheney and omitted
his major role in making sure 9/11 was the success it was for the neocons, he's a limited
hangout.
RT should bring Hersh on the show as much as possible. The guy is a legend and he is not
allowed to publish his articles anywhere in the US except in a German newspaper.
Is he sure about tht chemical weapons in Syria? What happened then when it was taken out
of Syria by the Authorities - whose name I have forgotten - and verified by the UN? He should
have a chat with Vanessa Bealey.
Good to see Sy on the rounds again - it's been a while. I guess he was finishing his book.
That point about the Russian sample being what proved to Obama that Nusra probably did the
WMD attack - "Red Line" - and called it off - I bet that had a lot to do with the move to
make Russia "beyond the pale" regarding official OPCW reports. Since then, all the tests have
been done remotely, by Turkey, by the UK, by anyone but Russia. I believe that the balance of
the evidence in the entire Syria aggression suggests that the Syrian government never
conducted any chemical attacks, and that any real attacks that took place were done by the
terrorists.
It should be just common sense - groups which are happy to massacre men, women
and children, keep women as slaves, eat livers, etc would have no moral qualms about using
chemical weapons whatsoever. The Syrian government, on the other hand, has always been in
control of the majority of the population in Syria - even in their worst moments before the
Russians came to help - and so any use of such barbaric methods would risk revolt from the
masses.
No president under such a long conflict could remain in power if he were capable of
such brutal and callous methods - in fact, the evidence shows that they have made every
effort to either arrange the surrender or evacuate the belligerents, while allowing for
civilian escape wherever possible.
The whole "brutal dictator" libel never made any sense
about Assad - he remains popular, mingles with the people, has full support from the
military. He is also a rarity for so-called dictatorships in the Middle East - not a military
man, but a civilian doctor. If there were the slightest doubts about him, the military would
have removed him by now - instead, his government and military appear to have both high
morale and widespread support from the people.
Of course, the facts are never a big concern
for the "regime change" crew - but thankfully, their ability to "create facts on the ground"
has weakened immensely over the 20 years of terror the US rulers began in 2001.
Other patterns on behaviour of British government suggest their nefarious role in Skripal
poisoning scandal
Notable quotes:
"... What else to expect from "Christian colonialists" but hypocrisy and double speak! "Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires ..."
"... Most Christian Colonial wars are fake wars against weak, or weakened, countries for 2 streams of Private Profit using Public Funds. ..."
"... Western looting of Libya netted "someone"(s) more than $1 Trillion in gold and currency reserves alone. Iraq lost historical artifacts of inestimable value. The Friends & Relatives crowd will be perpetually pissed with Putin for ruining Christian Colonialism's plan to loot Damascus. ..."
"... I hate to add another layer of shit on a very deep pile, when it comes to my u k but ! Could the academics here take a look at the time lines concerning the last general election and referendum compared to the 3 terrorist attacks about the same time. That is what kept may in power! Compare to for instances the fake Salisbury incident and east Douma Chem incident. All same patten ! I dug deep but don't let me influence enyone. To add, look at the timing of the grenfail tower fire, re election. I'l just leave this here. ..."
"... Talking about fake wars, bombing functioning ME countries back to the Stone Age and looting them, and "Israel" being a vociferous promoter of the Iraq & Syria Fake Wars, does anyone know how 'lootable' Iran is? ..."
"... Another astonishing thing about all this is the "liberal" media MSM or however you choose to call the corporate establishment press has always gone along with all the coverups. But things have changed and things are changing. ..."
Read Murray's blog entry prior to b's, and it's extremely damning. The May government must be
thrown out and the notables from all post-911 UK governments must be charged with over the
crimes they've committed--including the obstruction of those crimes investigations. This
report also shows we ought to consider Skripal Affair as 100% falsehood as the May government
has less than zero credibility on anything, which is one of the reasons it must be tossed. I
wonder if there're enough Corbynites capable of unseating the "Blue Tories" to bring a new
revitalized People's Labour Party back into power so that justice can be served.
craig murray and b are to be commended for addressing this ongoing issue..
we're back to the issue of accountability and again - nothing has changed..as karlof1 and
worldblee note - this must be addressed and someone must be held accountable for this, or it
will continue.
so - is the uk trying to be like the uae/ksa of the north? maybe they could take up
headchopping as well? i am not sure what country is more backward - uk or usa... in this race
to the bottom, both countries are fully supportive of these regressive regimes in uae/ksa and
fully onside with the war on yemen which they must profit from in order for them to justify
it... for me - justifying murder and mayhem based on profit is a sign of a really sick
culture, but it is fully embraced by many of the so called democratic western countries,
including the one i live in - canada... as far as leadership is concerned - there is a huge
gap and no one is speaking out on any of it in the political spectrum as i know of...
meanwhile we have to thank b and craig murray for shining a light on this as a constant
reminder of just how backward the so called civilized countries are here in 2018..
What else to expect from "Christian colonialists" but hypocrisy and double speak!
"Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime;
another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires
There are two aspects of this Christian Colonial (Western) clusterfuck which are particularly
galling for The People in whose name these crimes are committed:
1. Torture was used to extract false confessions.
2. Most Christian Colonial wars are fake wars against weak, or weakened, countries for 2
streams of Private Profit using Public Funds.
----(a) The M-IC makes vast profits from Weapons (win or lose).
----(b) Their wealthy Friends & Relatives get first pick of the spoils of Looting, at a
big discount.
Western looting of Libya netted "someone"(s) more than $1 Trillion in gold and currency
reserves alone. Iraq lost historical artifacts of inestimable value. The Friends &
Relatives crowd will be perpetually pissed with Putin for ruining Christian Colonialism's
plan to loot Damascus.
I hate to add another layer of shit on a very deep pile, when it comes to my u k but !
Could the academics here take a look at the time lines concerning the last general election
and referendum compared to the 3 terrorist attacks about the same time. That is what kept may
in power! Compare to for instances the fake Salisbury incident and east Douma Chem incident.
All same patten ! I dug deep but don't let me influence enyone. To add, look at the timing of
the grenfail tower fire, re election. I'l just leave this here.
Talking about fake wars, bombing functioning ME countries back to the Stone Age and looting
them, and "Israel" being a vociferous promoter of the Iraq & Syria Fake Wars, does anyone
know how 'lootable' Iran is?
Rumors says that Iran has very ancient roots and one imagines it may have artifacts going
back 5000+ years, although I've never heard them talked about.
Another astonishing thing about all this is the "liberal" media MSM or however you choose to
call the corporate establishment press has always gone along with all the coverups. But
things have changed and things are changing.
There is a not quite parallel story to this. The child separations - did you ever hear
from the corp. media about the 5,100+ children separated from their families in 2011 by
Obama. Nor much about how Obama had deported more than Trump at this point in his term.
I try to follow press from several countries and what I notice now is that EVEN MODI is
moving away from the US. The general views is - hay, we want to trade and get along we want
development but we have to deal with this big pain in the ass we have to spend a lot if time
and energy dealing with the US that we could use for development.
Trump is doing the world a favor by bringing all the criminal behavior of the US into the
open, its been there all along.
The liberal press which is hounding Trump over the issue now were silent for a decade when
"liberals" were in power have a Pyrrhic victory, it will come back on them.
If this trade crazy stuff drives Modi to join the B&R the US commercial/corporate
global empire is well and truly over.
Let us appeal to the gods.
The World Cup proceeds as if carried along by an unstoppable force, pouring very positive
concrete into foundations somewhere, giving ordinary people another vision of a country that
has always fascinated me.
Graham Phillips, an Englishman and journalist, who joined with the Donbass people in their
resistance to the coup in Ukraine made an interesting podcast echoing b.'s piece about Shaun
Walker, my particular enemy. He quietly demolishes Walker's claims that Russians were singing
Nazi songs in a nightclub.
All in all there is a feeling of tensions subsiding a little, a feeling that one can carry
on a bit with one's life. The only thing I have learned is to enjoy such moments even if stuff
like Yemen is agonizing. Agonizing but not existential as Syria is. But is that not just a bit
cynical?
SERIOUSLY?!!! - Did Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey have time to visit his home after he was
exposed to the poison but before he exhibited symptoms? Or did someone deliberately pour
bucketfuls of
Novichok into his home?
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who also fell ill after being exposed to Novichok,
receiving £430,000 in compensation for his family home.
Actually I suspect there is nothing wrong with the house. It is Detective Sergeant Nick
Bailey that is too poisonous to be allowed to roam free. He will be given a new identity,
transferred to the USA and released into the custody of some FBI witness protection program. He
must never be allowed to speak to public.
The secret that Nick Bailey must never reveal is that he was poisoned two days after the
Skripals, most likely in the evidence room at the police station by the
£100,000 of cash in the red bag .
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
When I saw that Shawn Walker Tweet, and the mostly brilliant take-down responses, I hoped b
would mention it. I can think of no one better suited to address this particularly putrid
propaganda. Bravo! And to the (almost) universally excellent barfly commentariat.
BBC created a whole genre of Russian World Cup scare mongering. One they did was on the
deadly threat of "Russian Football Hooligans." RT did an excellent 4 minute job of combining
journalism with humor to expose that bit of 100% Fake News.
The Media is a complete weapon for propaganda. The "writers" are propagandists. There never
is a report on Russia from the Western media that does not vilify or demonize Russia or
Russians in some way.
The World Cup is experienced by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Russia. They are
going to be the truth-tellers.
The event, like Sochi Winter Olympics will stand for itself. It will be splendid.
And the lies will die.
Never expect the truth from the Media.
Always expect the Russian people to be extraordinary. They have demonstrated it for a
century.
The problem the MSMs have is that the World Cup so far has been a success.
Notable quotes:
"... Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip & slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds. ..."
"... The claims he makes are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel. ..."
"... The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those nations back. ..."
"... The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their shareholders ..."
"... It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei. ..."
"... The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold on to the past. ..."
And another thing - the other day I came a cross an interesting tidbit, I would include a
link if I can remember where I saw it, it may in fact have even been the graun. It goes like
this:
A few years back the FBI raided the FIFA HQ in Switzerland eventually arresting and charging
many FIFA commissioners alleging they were taking backhanders and at the time I, along with
many other sort of assumed that the amerikans shoving their stickbeaks into an organisation
which was none of their damn business was down to an announcement from FIFA president Blatter
that if the Israeli army and police didn't cease harassing the Palestinian team preventing
players from getting to international games by holding the players up at checkpoints, sometimes
for days, FIFA would have no choice but to penalise the Israeli football team who had already
been granted special dispensation by FIFA to play in the Euro conference rather than the ME one
that their geography should have demanded.
Nuttytahoo did his usual 'antisemite' victim whine so it was a reasonable assumption to think
the fed raid the next week was connected.
It may have been the issue which caused the amerikan sheet sniffers to move, but the actual
investigation was caused by something completely different. Two nations competed for the 2018 world cup hosting rights. One was Russia and the second one
was . . .drumroll. . . England! Yep the perfidious poms had put in their bid and one of the tools in their 'kit' was none other
than the old fibber Christopher Steele, who just as with the Trump investigation, did his
'inquiry' by remote control as he is persona non grata in Russia.
Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip
& slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds.
The claims he makes
are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with
tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never
any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a
bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup
venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine
tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel.
The other big lie was that while the Russian president was in Qatar finalising the joint gas
pipeline deal he cut another deal of the 'you vote for us we'll vote for you' as world cup host
in 2018 and 2022 respectively. Yeah that sounds just like President Putin tossing Russia's
economic future to the side while he organised a few soccer games - not.
The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer
sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well
just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their
wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions
into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the
Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those
nations back.
The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising
the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their
shareholders.
No one should begrudge these guys the few quid they grabbed, I know puritans hate it but in
a truly tolerant society we should expect that a few otherwise dedicated types will always
'tickle the peter'. I used to get pissed about it in the union movement but the amounts are
usually small compared to turn-over and I'd rather have a dodgy member of the proletariat who
grabs a little in a position of power than a slimy neolib forever manouvering to flog the
entire kit & kaboodle off to a bunch of anonymous 'financiers'.
It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of
suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for
this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who
were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who
are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei.
The UK hates the idea that the EU that they left would turn to Russia for friendship. Their
propaganda goes along with the USA that shares this apprehension. Now that Trump has
humiliated the EU, the EU is turning toward Russia despite the UK...
The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian
branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold
on to the past.
"... Fact is that the Guardian and the Telegraph are full of anti-Russian propaganda. There is no piece in them about Russia or Putin that does not include snide and fear mongering or repeats long refuted claims about this or that incident for which Russia is claimed to be responsible. The military industrial complex gave order to condemn Russia and the "western" main stream media follow through. ..."
"... But don't pity them. They made their choice, and are well rewarded for their services. With respect, I would rather despise them. ..."
"... And Shaun is trying to sneak out: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/20/police-england-fans-russia-nazi-salute-world-cup ..."
"... I can't prove Shaun Walker and Luke Harding are MI5 operatives but I feel it in my gut. ..."
"... Shawn Wanker personally witnessed Russian AFVs invading Ukraine when he was 1) too far away from the border to see them 2) had amazingly forgotten to bring his smart phone so he could take a geolocated photo. So his credibility is low. As in lower than snake shit. ..."
"... What a tangled web the west has woven for itself through its deceits. How these presstitutes had to work through the night, and sweat the details, to try to patch the holes in the sinking ship - while those who were part of the truth of discovering the reality of Russia slept soundly, and probably with a great beer buzz, and the ring of real people in their ears. ..."
Andrew Roth Retweeted Shaun Walker
Absurd the responses to this incident that multiple correspondents saw. And their point is that it was an outlier in
what sounded like a fine night at the football. Context is all here, should they ignore it instead?
If two British scribes say they heard something, which each describes differently, then it must be true. "Evidence?
We don't report with evidence. Trust us."
This morning a Russian blogger posted some evidence (machine translated from Russian):
Remember yesterday there was a lot of talk about the English journalist who wrote about the alleged Russians who
sang Nazi songs in a bar in Volgograd? They found them. But they were not Russian, but... British. Actually, for
that, it's e... Lo must be beaten. This is Volgograd! Stalingrad!
The attached a video shows three drunk
British blokes in an 'Irish' pub where the menu is written in Cyrillic letters and World Cup flags hang from the
ceiling. The blokes sing a line about putting someone to Auschwitz, give the Hitler salute and shout "Sieg Heil!" The
pub where the video was taken seems to be a different one than the Harat's Walker and Luhn visited. But the point was
made.
Fact is that the Guardian and the Telegraph are full of anti-Russian propaganda. There is no piece
in them about Russia or Putin that does not include snide and fear mongering or repeats long refuted claims about this
or that incident for which Russia is claimed to be responsible. The military industrial complex gave order to condemn
Russia and the "western" main stream media follow through.
Both of the scribes quoted English fans who lament about the false picture they had when they arrived in Russia.
Might that have something to do with the constant stream of russophobe trash the British media provides? Should a
British correspondent in Russia take some time to reflect upon that?
But the two scribes go off to have lots of beer to then send spurious, late-night, anti-Russian claims to their
100,000 followers without providing any evidence. Then they lament about being called out for that.
They are mediocre propagandists who's words no one trusts or believes. One must truly pity these guys.
Posted by b on June 20, 2018 at 04:14 PM |
Permalink
Pity these guys? Not really. Remember, they are not journalists. They are propagandist,
hired mouthpieces. They say what they are scripted to say by their corporate bosses, it doesn't
matter how absurd, the point is to just hammer and hammer and hammer away and mold public
opinion via brute force. The old Soviet Union had more subtle liars.
But don't pity them. They made their choice, and are well rewarded for their services. With
respect, I would rather despise them.
I can't prove Shaun Walker and Luke Harding are MI5 operatives but I feel it in my
gut. I got banned from the Guardian for contrasting Walker's article on the supposedly
insanely loud, strident music in hotels at the Sochi Olympics with a real journalist who said
the music was quiet and varied between classical and soft pop.
Most people are reading the sports journalists, thankfully, and watching them...
Every day the NYT has one or two op-ed pieces critical of Putin/Russia. Today it was by
Alexey Kovalev, and titled "The World Cup Is Fun. Except for the Russians Being Tortured." I'm still waiting for a mention that the host team scored 8 goals in their two
matches.
Shawn Wanker personally witnessed Russian AFVs invading Ukraine when he was 1) too far away
from the border to see them 2) had amazingly forgotten to bring his smart phone so he could
take a geolocated photo. So his credibility is low. As in lower than snake shit.
Aaaaaaaaaand in the meantime, people around the world are are amazed at the beautiful
stadiums, the fantastic atmosphere, the great welcome from local people who ar suddenly
"invaded", they wonder at the well functioning machine behind it all, the wonder at the tight
security and safety of spectators and sport stars.
Congratulations Russia and Russian people, well done! You are doing this exceptionally well.
The World Cup, will be billions of dollars worth in positive reviews.
Great to see that Brit fans laid a wreath at the memorial. Shows May and Johnson are not
connected to the public,
Seeing that the homophobia and racism claims are not sticking well in their relentless
anti-Russian narrative, the MSM has dug up the case of the Ukrainian film director Oleg
Sentsov who is currently on hunger strike while in jail in Labytnangi, in northern Siberia,
for planning to carry out terrorist acts on public infrastructure and a statue in Crimea and
to set fire to government office buildings in Simferopol in 2014, and is flaying it for all
it's worth.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/ukrainian-film-director-on-hunger-strike-in-a-russian-prison-casts-dark-cloud-over-world-cup-20180620-p4zmmr.html
The sports writers are the truth, while the established anchors are the party line. It was
never any different.
We forget the upside. We forget how much energy it takes to keep a lie believable. We
forget how the west has to strain against incredulity itself in order to counter the random
and unschooled manifestations of the truth.
What a tangled web the west has woven for itself through its deceits. How these
presstitutes had to work through the night, and sweat the details, to try to patch the holes
in the sinking ship - while those who were part of the truth of discovering the reality of
Russia slept soundly, and probably with a great beer buzz, and the ring of real people in
their ears.
We have to do something, but we don't have to do everything, in order to counter the lies
of the liars. The universe itself - the very nature of reality - abhors untruth, and causes
the truth to show the shallowness of lies on countless, unscripted occasions.
And these occasions are usually a party. A celebration by ordinary people, joining in
common understanding.
What the rulers most fear.
Because all it takes is a small consensus of 10-15 percent of any population and you have
an activist force. They know this. Minions like the presstitutes mentioned here probably
don't understand this in words, but in their bowels they know.
Harding is definitely a joke. He is pretty pathetic easily jumping in and trying to milk any
Russian scandal be in Litvinenko, Russiagate, Steele dossier, of Skripals. Any version of events
that he approved can be instantly discarded a lie probably created with MI6 help. So he can serve
as a kind of reliable negative indicator, if you wish.
Applebaum is more dangerous, but still she a typical rabid neocon without any "in depth"
understanding of Russia. the net result of Skripal affair was poisoning Russian-British relation
for decade or so. If this is the price Theresa May wanted to pay to stay in power she should be
prosecuted for abuse of her office.
Notable quotes:
"... The Skripal case: A new Cold War? ..."
"... Applebaum now works at the London School of Economics where she heads, appropriately enough, a program on disinformation and 21st century propaganda. She is a virulent anti-communist and a ferocious warmonger, married to the former foreign minister of Poland. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... editing, contextualising, explanation and redaction ..."
"... Answering a question about the government's use of D-Notices (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice), Morris tried desperately to excuse press censorship. Contradicting reports that the government had issued two D-notices to prevent the media from identifying British intelligence service personnel Skripal was working with, he said there were "very few that we know about, only one." D notices had "changed" and are now "advisory." ..."
"... One audience member pointed out that since the poisoning had been unsuccessful, Russia might not have been responsible and that the government and media had taken the easy way out by blaming Russia. ..."
"... This was dismissed without a serious answer. The newspaper of what passes for the "liberal left" instead proceeded to solidify its alliance with the most right-wing layers of the US and British political and intelligence establishment by churning out anti-Russian propaganda of a distinctly McCarthyite character. ..."
The Guardian's June 4 event, The Skripal case: A new Cold War? was a
blatant attempt to propagandise against Russia in the interests of British imperialism.
The newspaper gave the platform to Anne Applebaum and Luke Harding along with two of its
journalists, Caroline Bannock and Steve Morris, who had covered the Skripal story.
All have uncritically regurgitated the British government's unsubstantiated, contradictory
and constantly shifting claims that the Russian-British double agent Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Julia were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent by the Putin regime.
Applebaum now works at the London School of Economics where she heads, appropriately
enough, a program on disinformation and 21st century propaganda. She is a virulent
anti-communist and a ferocious warmonger, married to the former foreign minister of
Poland.
After the Russian annexation of Crimea, she called for "total war" against nuclear-armed
Russia in a column in the Washington Post . Closely connected to the highest echelons
of the US state, she is a member of key foreign policy think tanks and sits on the board of
directors of the CIA-linked National Endowment for Democracy.
Harding, long time foreign correspondent for the Guardian , appears to have very
close links to Britain's security services. He has authored books that can only be described as
hatchet jobs on Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, aimed at discrediting them and facilitating
their persecution by the US authorities, as well as innumerable propaganda pieces against
Russia.
The Guardian itself has a long record of dutifully promoting the anti-Russian
warmongering of both the US and British political establishments. It supported the
Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, using allegations of Russian aggression to press for
punitive sanctions against Moscow, British participation in the US intervention in Syria
against the Russian-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad, most recently following fake news of a
chemical weapons attack on Douma. This is in addition to accepting uncritically the allegations
of Russian interference in the US presidential election in 2016.
To underscore the Guardian's political loyalties, another invitee, although not on
the platform, was Sir David Omand, from whom the Guardian has commissioned several
articles over the years.
Omand is a former senior civil servant and head of the Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ), the intelligence and security organisation responsible for spying on
people at home and abroad. He is currently a visiting professor at King's College London and
vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute, the leading military think-tank.
It was GCHQ that in 2013 oversaw the operation to destroy the Guardian's hard
drives and memory cards on two computers containing encrypted files from whistle-blower Edward
Snowden, after the British government threatened to jail editor Alan Rusbridger and close the
newspaper over its reporting of the Snowden revelations. The Guardian accepted this
blatant censorship with only token protest.
The newspaper also has form on news control. It stated in 2010 in an infamous editorial
about WikiLeaks, which had provided secret US diplomatic cables to the Guardian and
four other news outlets, that it had only agreed to publish "a small number of cables" to
control the political fall-out from the details of murder, torture, espionage and
corruption they revealed. It added that the newspaper had exercised extreme discretion in the "
editing, contextualising, explanation and redaction " of the documents. [emphasis
added]
The Guardian is acutely aware of the widespread and entirely healthy scepticism
towards anything the government says on Skripal, in the aftermath of lies such as the existence
of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" in furtherance of Britain's warmongering. Indeed, the
week before the June 4 event confirmed the need for the Guardian's services in
propping up the government's campaign of lies.
The newspaper led on the report of the supposed murder of Russian journalist Arkady
Babchenko at his apartment in Kiev as the assassination of yet another Putin critic, only for
Babchenko to show up alive and well the very next day at a press conference about his "murder."
Harding wrote lamenting that the stunt "would allow Russia and other unscrupulous governments
to dismiss real events as fake."
At the event itself, focus was placed for the most part on calls to end Russian money
laundering in London and avoiding wherever possible any direct examination of the Skripal case
in favour of sweeping generalisations.
Applebaum rejected any possibility that the Kremlin was not involved in the Skripals'
attempted assassination. She insisted that, having done a lot of research on how Russian
propaganda works, "this was like watching a replay of MH17," the Malaysian passenger jet shot
down over Eastern Ukraine. In that case, "Russia immediately put out dozens of stories, not
just deny it, but using multiple sources, gave out dozens of stories to pollute media with so
much nutty stuff in order to make people draw back and say believe it is all unknowable. That
is their modus operandi, designed for a Russian audience."
Applebaum never indicated that the same might be said about the British government's line on
the Skripal case!
Harding said that assassination was a traditional Russian method of dealing with opponents
going back to Lenin and Stalin and was resurrected in the 1990s when Putin and ex-KGB people
came to power. Unable to cite any example of Lenin assassinating anyone, he roamed willy-nilly
through history citing various assassinations by Stalin, including that of Trotsky, and various
more contemporary alleged assassinations as "proof" of his argument.
There were, he said, two theories about why Russia had tried to kill Skripal.
The first, which Harding rejected, was that after Skripal was released in a spy exchange, he
broke the rules, remained active and embarked on the old spies' lecture trail. The second,
which he "preferred," is that Skripal was "almost irrelevant": not so much the target but an
instrument to frighten and intimidate anyone thinking of cooperating with the West, especially
talking to the Mueller Inquiry in the US into the alleged Russian attempt to subvert the US
2016 election.
After these baseless ruminations, chairperson Mark Rice Oxley asked former GCHQ chief Omand,
sitting in the audience, for his thoughts. Omand was enthused. "It's a great conversation. I
agree with Luke's idea of implausible deniability. Hence the baroque method assassination. The
point is to intimidate.
"I know the team that did the assessment of the nerve agent, attributing it to a Novichok
agent and the Russian state. It was meticulous, like Sherlock Holmes, eliminating
everything.
"No scientific theory is 100 percent reliable, but this was as close as it gets," he
asserted.
He then admitted that it was entirely unclear how applying Novichok to a door handle would
work!
Omand agreed with Harding that the British government "should go after the money," urging
investigative journalists "to dig," saying it "would hurt the people in power around
Putin."
Omand, responding to a question from the chair as to whether British public opinion would be
in favour of increasing hostility to Russia, revealed the extent of the collaboration between
the Guardian and Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative government.
He said, "You are doing a good job in that regard. My fear is that if things worsen, it
would be necessary to explain The Kremlin could miscalculate, for example with a cyber-attack.
We could be moving into a dangerous period."
Applebaum interrupted, saying, "We know they could do that."
Some questions from the floor revealed public scepticism towards the government and media's
coverage of the Skripal case.
Answering a question about the government's use of D-Notices (Defence and Security Media
Advisory Notice), Morris tried desperately to excuse press censorship. Contradicting reports
that the government had issued two D-notices to prevent the media from identifying British
intelligence service personnel Skripal was working with, he said there were "very few that we
know about, only one." D notices had "changed" and are now "advisory."
Other members of the audience asked where the Skripals were now, reports about them being
given US passports and relocated to the US under fake names, the government's news management,
whether it was coincidence that Porton Down, the government's chemical and biological military
research institute, was so close to the incident, and that it had recently received additional
funding of £48 million.
One audience member pointed out that since the poisoning had been unsuccessful, Russia
might not have been responsible and that the government and media had taken the easy way out by
blaming Russia.
This was dismissed without a serious answer. The newspaper of what passes for the
"liberal left" instead proceeded to solidify its alliance with the most right-wing layers of
the US and British political and intelligence establishment by churning out anti-Russian
propaganda of a distinctly McCarthyite character.
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to
discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little
risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy
by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to
an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation
just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain,
France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was
considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one
reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if
the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as
their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been
a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of
other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major
corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look
like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable
speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016
national elections in the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major
alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald
Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations
carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all
according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the
attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to
avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the
evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring
instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation
of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will
apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible
motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations
made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely"
Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical
weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful
enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared
to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in
London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included
the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe
that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion
suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the
CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like
it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit
of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate
and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
Economics has a lot of similarities with Theology.
People can believe whatever interpretation fits with their own indoctrination.
The difference being there is a truth to economics that seems to be invisible to most people,
major economists included.
Your post highlights some of the stark realities that people just refuse to accept for some
inexplicable reason.
Maybe the better economic managers will come to the rescue or maybe there will be a
collective awakening when in a moment of clarity we start to realise how badly we have been
conned.
There are many societies that tolerate a certain degree of economic inequality, but still
provide decent living conditions, services and infrastructure for most citizens. The notion
that we either have extreme inequality or extreme poverty is empirically and morally empty.
Further down the thread, 'Weakaspiss' makes a pertinent observation; " government has
forgotten they govern for all, and have a primary duty for those who are least able to
prosper."
In fact, they've "forgotten" nothing.
Instead, they've fallen for the self-serving blandishments of Libertarian dogma.
Where have I learned of these ?
By reading the posts of GA's resident Libertarians.
The sub-texts of which are wonderfully instructive.
1. Nothing is more important than the individual.
2. And as an individual and a Libertarian, I am infinitely superior to you.
3. Plus I resent paying taxes, which are outright theft.
4. Since I believe, utterly without basis in reality, that taxes levied on hard-working,
wonderful freedom-loving ME, sustain the likes of lazy, parasitical YOU.
5. Meanwhile, govt, if it cannot be destroyed, must always be demonised and underfunded. And
so-called 'programs of public benefit' for the parasites--like Medicare, or the ABC-- must be
sold outright to the private sector.
6. No I don't want to debate about it, if there's a chance I'll lose the argument.
My ego demands I win every time..
7. Certainly not with losers of lower social status, who were 'educated' in a union-run
public school.
8. And don't even come near me, losers. Yuk ! You're probably not even white !
9. Because I socialise only within my own tribe, thank you very much.
10. Besides, you're probably living off my taxes.
11. Did I mention taxes somewhere ?
12. Taxes are theft.
Our conservatives have "forgotten" NOTHING.
Instead, they've fallen for a sociopathic ideology which tells them their least attractive
impulses are positively praiseworthy.
Hence the nasty, ego-driven tone of current political life.
Injected directly into the bloodstream of our body politic by a Lying Rodent.
Its philosophy may be simply stated
Does your policy shit all over people you never cared for anyway ?
THEN DO IT.
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes
have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion.
"Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for
fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is
littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in
this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
The neo liberals are intent on defacing Australia. Their pusstulant tentacles stretch into
our classrooms forcing our kids to believe in their god. They tell us that white millionaire
farmers deserve refugee status and all the benefits bestowed on poor persecuted minorities.
They tell us that the disgustingly rich deserve tax relief. Their's is a world where their
children are entitled to safe electoral sets. But they can be defeated and sent to misery. We
did it in the Same Sex Marriage fiasco and we can do it to their more insidious behaviours.
Write to your local member. Barrage them with emails. Write to their propaganda Letters to
the Editor. Donate to GetUp. Keep on keeping on.
Neoliberalism, the dogma was was sourced from Milton Freidman's Monetarism economic theory.
When it morphed into the 'Greed is Good' credo is unclear.
Guess you have to call the disease something, so Neoliberalism it is.
Is capitalism stuffed?
There is much debate at the moment about which Party has the best economic plan going
forward. The Coalition maintains that the best way is by giving large tax breaks to
business.
This is currently being called 'Pre GST theory or old style trickle down economics'.
Lenore Taylor writes:
"The investment bank once chaired by Malcolm Turnbull has backed the view that much of the
benefit from the Coalition's company tax cuts could flow to offshore investors, as the
prime minister insisted his plan was the best way to ensure continued economic growth".
"The domestic benefits would be far bigger if companies used the tax cut to grow their
business, but according to Goldman Sachs "survey evidence suggests that companies are less
likely to voluntarily lower the dividend payment ratio", in other words, the real-world
impact was likely to be closer to the scenario where 60% of the benefit flowed
offshore"
"Neoliberalism will literally be the death of democracy."
In fact, that's the plan.
Openly alluded to by the IPA's Gary Johns;
".... a cardinal tenet of libertarianism is to keep democracy in its place, to regard it
as an activity of limited application. Government's role is to depoliticise much of life, to
make it less amenable to public dispute....."
From Margo Kingston's 'Not happy, John !' (2005).
Get on to the 'Catallaxy' site.
You'll soon find out what Libertarian sociopaths think of democracy.
I actually think many people go along with neoliberalism because they perceive it will turn
out well for them. It's the every man for himself Darwinian approach to life, but the LNP
reflects that view most closely. It's the one where everyone is a welfare scrounger, but if
for some reason you end up needing welfare, you deserve it because of all the tax you paid,
even though you've been minimising your tax for decades.
The other great con is convincing the public that voting for anyone but the two major parties
is "wasting your vote". This political duopoly means only those interests are ever
represented and that has also led to Australia's systematic decline. Yes it's true that the
majors hold majority in parliament but we've already seen that voting below the line can
work- Labour had to take notes from the Greens last time they held power. Despite how
hopeless it all seems we do still have the power to affect change as long as we- all of us-
stop swallowing the lies.
The current two party system is like a coin. On one side we have the head of Malcolm Turnbull
and on the other Bill Shorten. When it comes to the toss up the corporations and wealthy get
to call heads.
How many voters even have any idea of what "neoliberalism" is? I would be thinking not many,
especially as the Murdoch press don't even use the term in their publications. They might feel
the effects , but without any conceptualisation of its underpinning ideas and ideology be
less likely to be able to identify policy which reflects neoliberal values. And I'm sure the
powers that be like it that way.
For that last 40 years some variant of neoliberalism has been the predominant dogma.
Unfortunately once we moved on from hunter gatherer to an agriculture supported society we
lost the connections to each other that existed at the tribal level. That sense of community
does not flourish in our eight thousand year experiment with city based civilisation. It
seems to only do so during times of disruption and war.
Personally my experience of living in a socially cohesive society was the 30 year period
leading up to the reinfestation of the neoliberal curse that started in the 80's with Reagan
and Thatcher.
So neoliberalism is the norm, socialism requires more work. We can't take it for granted
that society will naturally gravitate towards egalitarianism.
Turnbull and his LNP cohort can openly mock the population with impunity safe in the
knowledge that a small but powerful and rich minority, joined by group think and supported by
exclusive membership institutions, schools, corporations, have a shared goal of controlling
the monetary, economic system and government.
It's apparent that elections can be won by throwing enough resources into well aimed
propaganda, (cue Murdoch). Cambridge Analytica was brutally effective at the last elections
in the US and UK. Anyone who believes a similar scam won't be tried in Australia is being
naive.
So people will still vote against their long term interests and we will likely still get
another dose of self inflicted neoliberalism at the next election.
The real problem will be that no where near enough voters will read this article or pieces
like it. The Murdoch press for example would never publish it and the content won't be
seriously discussed on morning TV. The ABC wouldn't dare mention a word of it.
I don't think it is all doom and gloom. I have 12 grandchildren, some now teenagers. They
and their kind are smarter than we give them credit for and they won't put up with the crap
we have bequeathed them. They don't get information from main stream media and although their
social media contains an enormous amount of rubbish, embedded are real grievances about their
lot in life. Soon they will vote. Goodbye and good riddance to the conservatives.
It is actually just a pan-national oligarchy, where legislatures and media are
compromised into acceptance of destructive and unethical policies by Big Money.
Worthy of repetition since I'm not able to give you more than one 'uptick'.
In this instance, I very much suspect it will be the staggering load put on the natural
environment that will spin the current "Eternal Empires" "down the sinkhole of history".
Sadly for everyone and everything else.
Neoliberalism wins by manipulating public distraction. The so-called reality shows of
mainstream media are the furthest flight imaginable from lived experience, and even the
serious news outlets succumb to the Peyton Place of Barnaby's baby and a disappeared Melania
Trump. All of which makes a considered analysis such as the one republished here such a
notable exception.
That man has the real meaning of neoliberalism. Neoliberal way is not incompatible with
unions, wages, social services or governments that protect their citizens.
His way there should be no division and no angst of politics. Maybe that's where the problem
is/ His way is not the way of modern politics and greed. Being rich does not mean being
greedy. But that is what modern neoliberam with its free markets mantra have come to be seen
as.
My Grandfather and Great Grandfather, would see this man as being correct with a very good
attitude. He would see Wall St and many financial businesses as greedy and managed by bullies
and tyrants.
Half the population prefers a politics that is racist and unethical, that demonises the poor
and idolises the rich, that eschews community and embraces amoral individuality. These people
don't care about the economic inconsistencies of neo-liberalism, they are far more attracted
to the divisive societal aspects of free market fundamentalism.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the
character of the poor than with the rules of the game:
They don't "see" it this way. They just say they see it this way to perpetuate that
inequality. They know that their wealth depends on the labour of the other 95-99%.
To keep us all working and voting for their lackeys, they make promises of wealth if you
are a persistent hard worker, never mentioning that the entire game depends on only a tiny
minority ever reaching the top. No, the real people holding them back are those who don't
work hard. Who don't contribute to the game. They're the ones to blame for why you're not
levelling up. The true scapegoats.
Victim blaming is a classic neo-con tactic, they seek to deflect from the impact of their
heartless policies by demonising the victims, from the unemployed and those stuck in the
welfare cycle to refugees trapped in offshore detention, indefinitely . We've all seen how
appalling their commentary can get, from Abbott and Hockey's "lifters and leaners" to Gina
Mineheart's "two dollars a day" & "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"
they show just how out touch they are. They honestly believe that people can lift themselves
out of poverty if only they "spent more time working", ignoring the fact that many are
working two jobs just to stay ahead.
Seems that on planet RWNJ there are more than 24 hours in a day..
Half the population need welfare to survive.
1% have 90% of all the toys in the sandpit and won't share. They feel that they are entitled
to all the toys.
This piece is well worth the reading particularly in light of the trashing of society's
values we see played out in Trump's America. However, the writer's definition of
"ideology " as a "system of ideas and ideals" even though it accords with the
OED's, fails to take into account the current pernicious influence of the ideologue who
distorts "ideology" into the "rationalisation of a suppression" as Joseph Dunne
noted in his book, " Back to the Rough Ground" .
This is the most apt description of the modus operandi of today's neoliberalists - the
justifying of their project to maximise wealth accumulation in their own self-interest by
promoting the propaganda that we are powerless cogs in the machine of the
economy , slaves to the whim of the omnipotent market, rather than active
agents who wish to contribute to a flourishing society .
Neoliberalism idealises competition against each other to ensure the
rights of the few, by suppressing our capacity to take
responsibility together through cooperation and collaboration with each
other.
This classic divide and conquer tactic will prevail only as long as we permit
it.
I'm a conservative and I have an good economics degree. I have to say though that I don't
understand neoliberalism at all.
As a example, when I was doing economics it was made very clear to me that natural
monopolies (such as electricity and water) cannot be made into a competitive market (rather
like trying to put lipstick on a pig). Similarly oligopolies introduce opportunities for
price manipulation (e.g. the banks). The neoliberal mantra that "markets are always right" is
just rubbish. Markets work well only when certain criteria are met.
Secondly, the right of workers to collectively bargain is fundamental to a well
functioning market economy. Labour is one of the inputs to production and the workers have a
right to a proper return on their labour. Individual workers have no real bargaining power
and can only act collectively through unions.
Finally, the related casualisation of the workforce is a disaster for workers and the
long-term interests of the economy. The stagnation of wages (and inflation) is one of the
products of this strong trend to casualisation (my blood boils when I hear of examples of
wage theft affecting vulnerable workers).
Income inequality is a product of a capitalist system. However, when the distribution of
wealth becomes very badly skewed (such as in the USA) then the political system starts to
break down. Trump was a beneficiary of this flawed income distribution. All Hillary Clinton
was promising was "more of the same". In short, Bernie Sanders was right.
Walter Schadel, in his book, The Great Leveler (see below), points to the role of income
inequality in driving revolutions and disruptions. There are lessons in this book for our
current crop of politicians both on the left and the right.
Wow! Richard Denniss says it like it is, neatly summing up "the big con".
I believe Australia is being sold from under our feet. The big asset-strip is on. Why are
we not benefiting from the mining boom? The answer lies in the way Rinehart companies and
others like hers have been permitted to use Singapore or other low-taxing countries to
minimise taxes. That these large companies should have the gall to demand large tax cuts as
well is preposterous.
When headlines indulge in fear-mongering about China, why is angst directed at Dastyari
for taking a relatively small donation, whilst at the same time the Australian government has
approved a joint purchase of large swathes of the Australian outback by Rinehart and Chinese
interests? Have we already forgotten the Darwin port deal? Why were Robb, Bishop and the
Liberal Party allowed to benefit from deals or large donations from "Chinese interests"? Yet
Bob Carr is being slammed for trying over many years to develop a more harmonious
relationship with China?
Australians have told federal and state governments that they hate privatisation. Not
content with selling off profitable businesses such as Medibank Private, the Liberal/National
Party federal government is privatising its services. Detention centres and prisons acted as
a stalking-horse for the creeping privatisation of jobs. Politicians assume most voters don't
notice or care when government jobs in those sectors are privatised, but other government
departments are following suit.
By permitting the Future Fund and superannuation funds to invest in tax havens, the
federal government has opened the door to a growing trend. If my super fund uses the Cayman
Island tax haven, it is easier to justify everyone else from the PM down to evade Australian
taxes as well. More insidiously, tax havens make it easier to cheat creditors in bankruptcy
cases, launder dirty money, break trade sanctions and much more. We aren't even aware of how
these may be playing out behind closed doors in our name. The problem with allowing Rinehart
to use Singapore or Turnbull to use the Cayman Island is that other companies and individuals
will increasingly Do so, and in the end, everyone is doing it. And when will we take note of
cryptocurrencies and how they can act like tax havens?
Our participation in wars not of our own making is also having dire results. Think of all
the money spent and lives of servicemen destroyed by serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine
if that money had instead been invested wisely in defence capabilities. And yet there we are,
interfering in the South China Sea, trying to provoke China at Trump's behest, and it is not
clear whether the Phillipines wants us there now anyway. And all the while, the cost of our
participation in war games is crippling our ability to acquire defence assets, making us more
reliant on the US.
The banking enquiry has only scratched the surface of how voters are being ripped off with
impunity. There are growing demands that the superannuation industry, in particular retail
funds, be subject to greater transparency and regulation. Yet Turnbull, Cash and colleagues
prefer to direct their scorn at industry funds, simply because they are controlled by
workers, via their unions.
We can sense "the big con" is all around us. We can almost smell it, so pungent is the air
of exploitation, corruption and fraud. Hopefully Denniss will join others in focussing us
more clearly on how we are being cheated of our birthright.
Despite the huge changes in communication in the last several decades
and the ever increasing levels of education in our society, politics have
failed to engage the vast majority and that cohort of the cynical, the alienated,
the disinterested, the lazy, the simply care less continues to grow.
In the last decade the only cause that evoked passion and engaged a larger
number, finally forcing our elected members to act was same sex marriage
.....a crescendo that took years to generate.
With the complicity of our media and the decline of that part of education
that teaches analysis, social psychology and political philosophy (let alone
teaches about basic political structures and mechanisms) our level of disengagement
from the political process appears to be at an all time high. The performance
of our legislators has become increasingly unaccountable and purely self interested
.... we have re-created the "political class" of pre-war times where alienation
was based on a lack of education and awareness and a sense of inferiority and
powerlessness DESPITE our vastly improved communication, access to information
and educational standards (not to mention affluence).
Basically, we have "dumbed down" to the extent where passion and ideology in
politics is now the preserve of fewer and fewer. In a democracy this trend is of
massive concern and a threat to its sustainability.... it also completely suits those
that are focused on concentrating power and wealth... the more that don't give
a toss the less likely you are to be encumbered by limitations, social considerations,
ethics and morality.
Until we re-engage far larger numbers into the political process, raise the levels
of awareness of political thought and choices, stop dumbing down and re-inject
some broader passion and participation into our political processes then vested
interests will continue to dominate.....and democracy will become increasingly
undemocratic !
I knew this government contained idiots, ne'er do wells, compulsive liars, misfits, childish
imbeciles, ego maniacs, sociopaths, psychopaths, bigots, rorters, drunks, fascists,
intransigents, ideologs, religious nutters, dullards, dunces, dickheads, shonks, spivs,
lairs, carpetbaggers, rent seekers, lobbyists, conmen, urgers, scammers, ratbags and people
unable to get work in any other field of endeavour....but Neoliberals?
Coded language:
or,
how we bade farewell to publicly-owned electricity.
Part 1
The perceptions of George Orwell seem as valid now as then
Since he dealt with sly deceptions of tyrannical men
So 'Orwellian language', though imprinted on a page
Now has impacts universal, which resound in every age
And in ours, language functions like a fingerprint-free glove
To absolve of guilt the guilty as, imposed from up above,
Has come theft of public assets, for the benefit of those
To whom money by the truckload only ever upward flows.
By subversion of our usage may such larceny be won
And I speak as a Victorian, so know how it is done.
It begins when greedy forces, with a nose for seeking rent
Need to seize and reshape language to conceal true intent
So collusion is essential, 'twixt such forces and the man
Who will slake their gross desires. He's a poll-i-tish-i-an
It is he who'll grasp the nettle, perform tasks of Hercules
Telling punters it is raining, while upon their backs he pees
Yet his task is mitigated. Because, what should hove in sight,
But the money-driven think-tanks of the predatory Right
Which have spent long hours fixated by their loathing of the State
So won't even wipe their bottoms, unless at an outsourced rate.
Now the think-tanks wunderkinden turn to '1984'
Where they find therein a tactic once employed in days of yore
It's to pick out words and phrases from contemporary use
Then submit their basic meanings to an arse-about abuse
Yet an overarching irony attends this tour de force
Since there's precedents in stating that a cart is now a horse.
For who bastardised a language, drawing from their bag of tricks ?
It was Stalin and Vyshinsky, back in 1936
O the horror ! O the shamefullness ! That, Sons Of Liberty
Must resort to basing tactics on the Kremlin's tyranny !
It's a classic situation when rent-seeking runs amuck
But there's easy money looming, so who gives a flying f**k ?
So consumers are persuaded, via mantra-laden talk
That they come before big shareholders in London or New York
Thus, a host of euphemisms sugar-coat the bitter pill
To the melodies seductive of a loudly-ringing till
Hark to incantantions joyous and of outcomes bound to please !
'Competition', 'lower prices', 'market-based efficiencies'!
(Though their very warmth and fuzziness will reinforce the fact
They've dragooned the highest language to describe the lowest act.)
"Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called "the bourgeois mode
of production." He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own
destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies -- think neoliberalism -- were created to serve
the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since "the class which has
the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means
of mental production" and "the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the
dominant material relationships the relationships which make one class the ruling one." He
saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse. He
did not know when that day would come. Marx, as Meghnad Desai wrote, was "an astronomer of
history, not an astrologer." Marx was keenly aware of capitalism's ability to innovate and
adapt. But he also knew that capitalist expansion was not eternally sustainable. And as we
witness the denouement of capitalism and the disintegration of globalism, Karl Marx is
vindicated as capitalism's most prescient and important critic."
We need a Nationalist government, which will automatically see itself as the mortal enemy of
the primary Internationalist (there used to be a song about that) force in the world today,
and which affects us greatly in terms of resource exploitation: Globalisation, or what we
used to call 'multi national corporations' or 'international capital'.
Nationalism is a decision-making tool as it always poses a question; what is good for
this country ?
When/if he mentions de-Globalisation, an Aus-Indonesian defence alliance, citizen
initiated referenda, and a Constitutional ban on donations and parties , then people
may listen, however he cannot be accused of being too imaginative or bright. He is
however advocating authoritarianism not fascism.
Fascism doesn't require a state sanctioned religion or suppression of religion
That said the Catholicism/fundamentalist Christian bent of the present cabinet and the
demonisation of any green beliefs is uncomfortably close to what you describe
And the nexus between big business and govern, the destruction of public institutions, the
reduction in the capacity of media to report truth and the vitriolic attacks on opponenents
are straws in an ill wind
You are right, it's not "fascismmmmmmmmmmmmmm".... it's Fascism. Which brings back to my
memory what Tom Elliott (the son of Liberal Party former president John Elliott) wrote in the
Herald Sun on 6 February 2015: "It's time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and
installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions."
he first page of Tim Winton's new essay collection,
The Boy Behind the Curtain
, sets a disturbing scene. A 13-year-old boy stands at the window of a suburban
street, behind a terylene curtain, training a rifle on passersby.
"He was a fraught little thing," says Winton
of that boy – the boy he used to be. "I feel related to him but I'm no longer completely him, thank god."
The passage opens a surprisingly intimate essay about the role of guns in Australian life, setting the tone for
a collection being billed as Winton's most personal yet.
In spite of his inclination for solitude, Winton has spent much of his life in the spotlight. His first novel,
An Open Swimmer, catapulted him into the public eye when it won the Vogel literary award in 1981, but it was his
1991 novel, Cloudstreet, that cemented his place in Australian letters. Winton has won the Miles Franklin award
four times and been shortlisted twice for the Booker. His books have been adapted for film, TV and
even opera
.
ss="rich-link">
Island Home by Tim Winton review – a love song to Australia and a cry to
save it
Read more
The contradictions of having such a high-profile career while working in a quintessentially solitary artform
are not lost on him. "I spend all day in a room with people who don't exist, and I'm not thinking about any public
– but once the thing's done it goes out there and it has a public life over which I have no, or very little,
control," he says.
On one reading, the boy with the rifle lurking out of sight, watching the world go by, could be a metaphor for
the life of a reclusive writer. But Winton is quick to distinguish himself from such a reading. "I wouldn't like
to see myself as somebody who was just cruelly observing the world behind the terylene curtain of art."
For Winton, the perceived lives of other writers always seemed completely unrelated to his own experience. "I
grew up with a kind of modernist romantic idea of the writer as some kind of high priest, someone who saw
themselves as separate and better, which I now find a bit repellent," he says. "I think that was something that
was sold to us at school and certainly at university that writers were somehow aloof from the ordinary business
of life; they didn't have to abide by the same rules as other people. The worse their behaviour off the page, the
more we were supposed to cheer them on. Once I woke up to that idea as a teenager, I think I consciously resisted
it."
Winton's own background was characterised by a working class sensibility and evangelical religion. His parents
converted to the Church of Christ when he was a small boy, the circumstances and his experiences of which form the
basis of a number of the previously unpublished essays in The Boy Behind the Curtain. As a result, when he finally
did start writing, it was with a particularly industrious work ethic.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Tim Winton: 'There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what writing was about.' Photograph: Hank Kordas
"I approached it like I was a tradesperson," he says. "It didn't necessarily involve FM radio played very
loudly on a worksite; it didn't always require plumbers' crack or a hard hat and there was certainly no
catcalling, but for the rest of it I went a different route. There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what
writing was about."
ss="rich-link">
A fish called Tim Winton: scientists name new species after novelist
Read more
Yet it was finding words, what Winton calls "the enormous luxury of language", that took him from being a
13-year-old boy who watched strangers through the eye of a rifle – a boy who was "obviously insecure and feeling
threatened and probably not quite one with the world" – to a well-adjusted adult.
The "emotional infancy of men" has a lot to answer for, he says, suggesting that it's something society would
do well to pay more attention to in its early stages. "The lumpiness and surly silence of boys is not something
we're sufficiently interested in. They're not sufficiently attractive to us until they become victims or dangerous
brutes and bullies."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say much doesn't have strong
feelings
Tim Winton
Conflicted masculinity is recurring theme throughout Winton's fiction, and his characters often suffer as a
result of their inability to articulate their feelings. "I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say
much doesn't have strong feelings," he says. "I think we stifle people's expression or we ignore people's signals
of wanting to express things at our peril."
The distinct tenor of Winton's prose, a lyricism which manages to turn even the Australian vernacular into a
kind of rough poetry, lends itself to the intimacy of the personal essay. The Boy Behind the Curtain contains a
number of vignettes that reflect the imagery and landscape that characterises his fiction: hot bitumen roads
through the desert; the churning ocean.
But there is also a clear political streak to Winton's nonfiction, and the inclusion of a number of more direct
essays in this collection mean it's difficult to collapse the work under the category of memoir. Stones for Bread,
for example, calls for a return to empathy and humanity in Australia's approach to asylum seekers. The Battle for
Ningaloo Reef is a clear-eyed account of the activism that prevented a major commercial development from
destroying a stretch of the Western Australian coastline. And Using the C-Word concerns that other dirty word that
Winton believes we are avoiding: class.
"I think there are people talking about class but they're having to do that against the flow," Winton says.
"We're living in a dispensation that is endlessly reinforcing the idea that we are not citizens but economic
players. And under that dispensation it's in nobody's interest, especially those in power, to encourage or foster
the idea that there's any class difference."
The market doesn't care about people, Winton argues, and neither is there any genius in it. "There's no
invisible hand," he says. "And if there is one, it's scratching its arse."
It's clear to Winton that neoliberalism is failing, but not without casualties, two of which are very close to
his heart: the arts and the environment.
"People in the arts are basically paying the price for this new regime where we pay no tax and where we get
less public service and more privatised service," he says. "The arts are last on, first off in people's minds and
I think that's not just sad, it's corrosive. They're just seen as fluff, as fripperies, as indulgence, as add-ons
and luxury. And I don't think the arts are luxury; I think they're fundamental to civilisation. It's just that
under our current dispensation, civilisation is not the point; civilisation is something that commerce has to
negotiate and traduce if necessary."
Winton is one of a number of high-profile critics of the Productivity Commission's proposals to allow
the parallel importation of books
, and a signatory to petitions opposing
funding cuts to the Australia Council
. But he has also been a grassroots activist in the area of marine
conservation for over 15 years.
"I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life on the side," he says.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life
on the side
Tim Winton
Years of lobbying by conservation groups and the general public contributed to the Labor government
announcement in 2012 of
42 marine reserves in Australian waters
, including over the entire Coral Sea. The Abbott government, however,
implemented a review which, in September this year, recommended
significantly scaling back those reservations
. It was, says Winton, an act of cowardice.
"The Abbott review was basically all about applying inertia to imminent progress," Winton says. "We've gone
from world leaders [in conservation] to being too frightened to lead."
When asked what role writing fiction plays in his activist work, Winton says it comes back to the idea of
"keeping people's imaginations awake".
"Imagination is the fundamental virtue of civilisation. If people can't imagine then they can't live an ethical
life."
"... The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson, an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and May 25. ..."
"... We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could have produced it, etc. ..."
"... I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria). ..."
"... If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive. ..."
"... when [Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate their claims, especially when intelligence is involved. ..."
"... I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh) has issued a new briefing talking about this matter. ..."
"... Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they apparently commissioned it. ..."
"... If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning. ..."
"... More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we have been involved in wars in the Middle East. ..."
The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson,
an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria,
Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and
May 25.
Julie Hyland: What is your estimation of the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
by Russia, and how do they relate to the war in Syria?
PR: We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of
the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had
relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was
inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could
have produced it, etc.
I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of
territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader
propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria).
If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that
would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was
going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive.
It's not something you can pinpoint for sure at this stage because you don't have access to
the information. I don't think we will know the full truth of exactly what is happening for
some time. But you can make an informed judgement call.
What we do know is that the claims being made at the time were not tenable. So when
[Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned
the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of
course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles
was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate
their claims, especially when intelligence is involved.
I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because
Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice
restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University
of Edinburgh) has issued
a new briefing talking about this matter.
Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher
Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I
understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It
appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they
apparently commissioned it.
If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility
that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning.
More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used
for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle
East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we
have been involved in wars in the Middle East.
In a related area that people don't usually connect, the same psychological warfare methods
being used in the Middle East are being used in the attack on public education to privatize
education globally.
I've had a degree of dialogue with Piers on Facebook .
Despite the fact that he has done some important work here regards state propaganda and
Syria I have found his political positions very much the typical University sociology
professor , where bourgeois ideology and Post modernism runs rampant .
Not immune to running off a line of expletives and ad hominems as if they constitute an
argument, Piers came to the defence of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Bealey when I had the
audacity to make a distinction between the defence of Syria against US Imperialism and a
defence of Assad per se and Putin
Both engaged in a somewhat lumpen diatribe on the question, despite the fact that I
clearly never once promoted an Imperialist line . The situation was in fact reminiscent of
what in more recent times the WSWS faced in regards Iran , when it seemingly ''had the
audacity'' to support the Iranian working class against its own bourgeois rulers.
The claims the British government made about the Skripal case are nonsensical. It is
entirely possible that the Skipal's were victims of simple
food poisoning or suffered from an
overdose of Fenatnyl . The British government used the case to increase hostility towards
Russia while diverting the public from its failures in the Brexit negotiations. There is
historic
precedence for such false accusations against the Russian state.
The Skripal case is
also related
to the "Dirty Dossier" the "former" British spy Christopher Steele created to defame U.S.
President Donald Trump. Sergej Skripal
may well have written parts of it . A fact which the British government is
trying to hide .
The Skripal's were probably hurt. The British accusations against Russia caused huge damage
in international relations. But the biggest casualty of the case might be the trustworthiness
of the British media.
Where are the deep investigations, the intriguing questions, the door stepping of witnesses
in this case? Why are no serious questions asked about the dubious claims made about the case?
How did the Skripals survive a nerve agent "ten times as deadly as VX"? Why is there no further
digging into the Steele dossier relation?
More
questions need to be asked. Who is the media servicing with its obsequious behavior?
Why?
---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the Skripal case:
On March 7, the British issued a D-notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) to
the British press formally requesting that they refrain from mentioning the name of Sergei
Skripal's former MI6 handler Pablo Miller or making any reference to him in their coverage of
the poisoning case and the police investigation. A week later, a second D-notice was issued
that reiterated the warning of the first D-notice and putting the press on notice not to
publish any information that could lead directly or indirectly to the identification of Pablo
Miller as Sergei Skripal's handler. http://powerbase.info/index.php/DSMA_notice_7_March_2018 http://powerbase.info/index.php/DSMA_notice_14_March_2018
This explains why the British press, usually notorious for harrying people in the
spotlight for interviews and gossipy information, have been noticeably reticent in
approaching the Skripals - assuming of course, that they have access to them.
This would also explain why Julia Skripal was reading a prepared statement in the video
and why her Reuters interview did not seem like a normal interview. She may have had a minder
close by prepared to intervene in case the interviewer posed a question she was not allowed
to answer.
Is anyone able to find out when the Reuters interview took place? If it took place some
time ago, would the time between Julia Skripal's release and the interview have been long
enough for Julia to recover to the extent where she looks well and appears not to be
suffering traumatic after-effects? And why was it only released on May 23?
The most plausible perpetrators of the original poisoning of the Skripals are some element of
the dysfunctional and evil British deep state, which connects to the American deep state,
which too is diabolical and dysfunctional.
The enormous resources, political and media and choreography and stream of lies,
surrounding the Skripal affair make it obvious as a dysfunctional deep state project.
The alternative explanations: 1) that it was Russia, make no sense whatsoever; 2) that it
was food poisoning is far fetched but possible, and might have been taken advantage of, and
the policeman victim then added, to create the 'right' attempted murder mystery ambience.
That is, those who have been 'protecting' and controlling and hiding away and issuing
statements for and 'restoring health to' the Skripals are very likely those who attacked
them.
Father Skripal is a practised devious sort, who would know the ropes. Thet he is not just
expendable, but an endangered loose end for various reasons now, including the Trump-Russia
false flag.
Has Julia Skripal had unimpeded access to her father since their recovery? If so, a wink
wink nod nod private whispered exchange between the two could have transformed the two into a
potential team effort to stay alive by playing their parts.
If she has not been allowed or had available a moment of private exchange with father
Skripal, then she might still know enough to understand that they are both in extreme
danger.
Father Skripal can likely be bought off. That's what he does for as living. But can
Julia?
Starting to believe that the Skripals were going to transport Novichok somehow into Syria so
that it could be used there In a staged event. The problem was that things may have gone
sideways. Makes sense why the Russians issued a warning of a staged attack and how the Brits
are keeping the couple incommunicado. The Russians could have known about the plot
beforehand.
As I commented here before there are many plausible explanations much more probable than any
of variants U.K. gov or media peddled. And this clear statement under duress sounding to
similar British hostages taken by Saddam Hussein in 2003 declaring that they were healthy ate
good food and were personal guests of Saddam and that they were free to leave anytime but
since they enjoyed themselves immensely they would stay for a while and hence do not worry.
Sounds like Julia Skripal. To support this there is not emphasized fact that they both
seem be to held in separate locations so they could not freely communicate much.
What is looks like that in this multiple bottom story something went wrong and some
desperate solutions have been implemented. Because it is clear now that by keeping them alive
that effectively cut off the family access while if dead family would have claimed bodies and
all those lies would have been exposed, or it was all a false flag to redirect Skripal role
in Trump dossier into made up Putin revenge on those who contributed to it.
Here is my take on all that, which may have not entirely happened as planed along the
scenarios I and others including b proposes.
As far as theory how this happened. I see that Skripal was in it, in fact he prepared and
tested appropriate dose for him as his daughter used as pawn to lend credibility and provide
required Putin evil killing innocent narrative which would be absent if he just killed or
hurt rogue agent.
Skipral himself calibrated that false flag dose of BZ or Fenantyl to make sure no
permanent damage would be done to his daughter and then administered it himself to her and
himself in controlled manner in public place so help would be coming immediately while in his
car they could have possibly lie there for hours before being discovered.
In fact place where he lived Salisbury near Porton Downs was perfect for this since there
was no way that doctors would misdiagnose them as military nerve agent victims which wrong
treatment would possibly caused irreversible damage to victims as doctors would be more
aggressive fearing immediate death of patients and also were immune to propaganda of Novichok
crap since they were experts in this medical field as real and present danger, threat of
exposure of Porton Downs employees was always there.
After recovery is was Skripal, trusted by her as her father, himself as part of psych op
presented the narrative as Putin wanted to kill me and did not care that you happened to be
with me at time of attack. I am so sorry, shit lies.
She was brainwashed or threatened some ways offered lucrative financial arrangement in the
west decided to stay and followed MI6 instructions, fearing she could be killed upon meeting
with Russian diplomats or even recruited family members or upon returning to Russia.
I do not think it would be far fetched to concoct such a thing or similar by MI6 as such
stunts were done before like fake deaths or staged attacks but in this case the point was to
fool British unwitting participants that nerve agent attack happenced as later they did later
in Douma in amateurish way but still it worked as pretext to pre planed aggression on Syria
as in case of Skripals pre planed diplomatic retaliation against Russia before any
investigation was really commenced , such a thing only perpetrators of false flag themselves
would do.
If Skripal was not on it why keep them alive witnesses of conspiracy since I could imagine
as a father myself Skripal would,have been furious of MI6 discovering what amounted to attemp
to kill his daughter and blame Putin one he learned that there was no Novichok crap or any
military nerve agent used.
In fact Fenantyl is deadly if inappropriately handled what just few days after Skripal
affair husband and wife overdosed on Fentanty in California and putting in critical condition
their mother in law trying to revive them in the bedroom, children that never enter the room
by looked through the Door who called 911 were also mildly exposed while a police officer who
entered the room end up in hospital himself.
Whole house was immediately quarantined and covered by tent until, special unit arrived
days later and only then police investigator entered premises. WImilar scenario unfolded in
Salisbury.
What interesting that no emergency or medical personnel in hospital in UK as in California
was hurt since they knew well how to deal with Fenantyl epidemic.
We must remember that despite crazy rhetoric we are dealing with risky but rational people
who were not smart enough to concoct something that would go down the throuta of gullible
public much more smoothly.
Starting to believe that the Skripals were going to transport Novichok somehow into Syria
so that it could be used there In a staged event.
Posted by: P Walker | May 24, 2018 9:39:46 AM | 18
At one point I saw a reference (on Sputnik I think, certainly a Russian source) that both
Skripals Sergei and Yulia were under investigation by Russian intelligence for smuggling arms
(I can't remember if there was a reference to chemical weapons but very possibly) into Syria.
It was slightly mind-jarring at the time since it conflicted with the official position that
Russia had (prior to the incident) no interest in Sergei Skripal. Otherwise I've seen nothing
on that, perhaps because of a criminal investigation in progress in Russia.
Regarding the throat scar - I can imagine that was the result of surgery for long-term
artificial respiration during the hospital-induced coma. If so, the alleged statement that
"the clinical treatment was invasive, painful and depressing" was unequivacally originating
from a technical and third-party source and definately not the patient. The doctor could well
have used that phrase in discussions with government officials, who got so used to it they
repeated it in composing an alleged statement for Yulia, but I am quite certain the patient
herself would not describe it in such a way whether in English or Russian, and whether native
English speaking or native foreign speaking. A patient's description would be much more
focussed on the patient's experience (pain, discomfort, probable dryness of the mucosal
membranes and side-effects resulting from that, etc) rather than "invasiveness" which was the
first word in the statement and thereby the most emphasised.
It was always suspicious that Yulia was "discharged" from the hospital - and therefore away
from her father - when her father was allegedly still under treatment. Yulia was alone in a
foreign country, utterly isolated from friends, family and aquaintances, while her father was
still in hospital undergoing "invasive, painful and depressing" treatment after an alleged
state-sponsored assassination attempt - NO WAY! She would not leave her father
voluntarily.
The statement that she does not want to be contacted by her cousin, grandmother, the Russian
government or anyone else is the real killer of the fairy tale, and is the exact opposite of
the compelling reality of such a traumatic episode. Is she supposed to believe her
grandmother and cousin actively conspired in the assassination plot? There is absolutely know
scenario that could explain such a wish.
i more like the "и принятия
всего
происшедшего." part.
('We need time for full revoery and for accepting all that happenned')
i bet it is as unrussian as unrussian can be.
it also is a bit confusing how she sternly repeats "no one should speak for us but
ourselves" then she herself speak for her father.
Another giveaway is "grateful to Russian embassy" -
"признательна
Российскому
посольству".
It is plain wrong. You do not write "russian" with capital letter in Russian.
And if you mean "Russian Embassy" as some kind of name - then bot hwords would be
capital.
It is yet another case of "thinking English" when authoring this Russian letter from Russian
woman to her Russian relatives...
Craig
Murray again shoots massive holes into the hostage video and PR, further using semantics
and discourse analysis to show the UK government at fault in this affair. A jointly written
article by b and Craig would be a great read since their own investigations are very
advanced, seemingly beyond all others. I for one find Craig's "lion cage" metaphor very
convincing.
A conjecture: Teresa had it done to protect Hillary.
1. Why, out of all places in the UK, Skripal would settle down in Salisbury, the location of
UK's CW labs? We're told that is because his handler, Pablo Miller, lived there. Fine, then
the question becomes: why, out of all places in the UK, Pablo Miller was living close to UK's
CW labs?
2. Why was it necessary to drag Yulia into this mess? A claim could be made that the
alleged Russian assassins needed her to track the location where Sergei lived. But this was
not her first visit to him, so alleged Russian assassins could have tracked his whereabouts
long time ago, then waited for the best moment to kill him. Obviously, it would be better to
kill him when he was alone, not with his daughter. Unless alleged Russian assassins, while
she was still in Moscow, secretly poisoned some object that she then brought to her father.
That is the only explanation why alleged Russian assassins would need Yulia. But British
government is not claiming that; instead, they claim that a toxic substance was applied to
the doorknob. Therefore, Yulia's presence was of no use to alleged Russian assassins. Then we
must conclude that her presence was somehow needed by the British or third-party
false-flaggers, or possibly by Sergei in case he was in on the plot. Otherwise, why not wait
till she leaves?
3. The choice of CW to assassinate Skripal, the fact that he lived next to the main CW lab
in UK (and one of the top CW labs in the world), and the fact that he and Yulia were poisoned
at the end of a three-week CW military exercise in Salisbury Plains, taken together, form a
combination that cannot be explained by mere coincidence. There must be a connection here.
Could British intelligence plan all this 8 years ago when they were selecting the location
where Skripal would live? Hell no. Therefore, it must have been the reverse: a decision was
made to kill or "kill" Skripal and pin it on the Russians, then someone decided to use the
fact that he was living close to the CW lab. However, if that's indeed what has happened,
then it was a very flawed plan from the start, since all these coincidences would be readily
apparent to outside observers. The poisoning false flag would work much better if Skripal was
living in some other region of UK, and there was no CW exercise at the time of his poisoning.
Therefore, either the plan was unintentionally dumb (because of incompetence), or it was
intentionally dumb (people did not want to do it but could not reject the order, so they
decided to sabotage it), or the original plan was entirely different, but it didn't work out,
so they quickly improvised something else and failed to make it convincing due to lack of
time.
Looking at the obvious tracheostomy scar left on her throat, Yulia must have lost all ability
to breathe on her on without ventilatory assistance for some time. A tracheostomy is only
performed after all effort to wean a patient off an endotracheal tube placed orally into the
trachea at the time of respiratory failure is attempted. It seems to me this was much more
than "food poisoning", and Yulia was in a deep coma for a prolonged duration.
This whole thing is very bizarre!
The Russian embassy seems curiously unwilling to file a habeus corpus application to produce
the Skripals and enforce their consular rights. I wonder why?
It can be interesting/useful. Translated today's article in Russian newspaper "Komsomolskaya
Pravda":
"KP"* exclusive: Victoria Skripal told that what her sister pronounced not her text in
the videoclip.
Both specialists and average people right away noticed that [Yulia] Skripal was
constrained, and a text which she has been pronounced was obviously written not by herself.
Yulia's sister Viktoria [Skripal] appeared with the same suspicions. Here's what the woman
told in exclusive interview during the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" radio air.
- Have you seen a written appeal?
- I saw only the appeal where she speaks. I'm glad she's alive and healthy. And i'm very
happy she'd like to come back home.
- Maybe you've noticed some strangenesses in this appeal?
- You mean, strangenesses that she's reading a text?
- What makes you think she's reading a text?
- You don't have to be a great specialist [to notice this]. When a person drop his eyes,
then lift up, then drop his eyes again. Do you know what is invasive therapy?
- No.
- Me too don't know. She too doesn't have a medical education. She is a geographer. I am
an accountant. But i don't know what is invasive therapy. And it can't be a persons speaks so
well, without mistakes. She has her favourite word. We all have our own parasite-word, right?
She used it when she called me by telephone: "ну да, ну
да" (Approximate English translation may be "yeah, yeah", or "well, yeah" - ed.).
But here [in this appeal] she suddenly did not use her words. I.e. it's smoothly, in one
breath. And a little bit slowly for her. Because [usually] she's chatter faster, when she's
talking and nervous.
@John Gilberts: A Russian article I've read today says the 1963 Vienna Convention does not
apply since the Skripals are not under investigation by UK authorities. However, their
relatives may go to a UK court to establish the status of the Skripals and request a meeting
with them.
hoped a thread for Yulia's staged appearance would be forthcoming; because of the
vicissitudes of timing, both B.'s observations and the comments have echoed my own reaction:
in brief, this was at best another UK government/spook "tease".
Aside from joining the chorus, however, I find that I am even more skeptical than
previously of the ostensible cumulative "facts" of the case. Yes, there are some established
"knowns", but too much sketchy and dodgy filler material surrounding them.
Yulia's brief presentation was obviously meticulously staged. But nothing that occurred
during the period of the Skripals' disappearance from public view should be presumed real,
actual, and authentic-- including that tracheotomy scar.
Am I saying that "they" would fake the scar? No; hypotheses non fingo. I'm saying that the
appearance of that scar should not prompt the otherwise "reasonable" surmise or assumption
that it "proves" that Yulia actually received a tracheotomy, that her medical condition
warrants it, etc.
I haven't seen any explanation for the circumstances behind Reuters hosting this tidy
little performance. It manifestly is not a case of some intrepid reporter or news
organization penetrating UK security and getting a "scoop".
As with the previous episodes, this "interview" raises more questions than it answers.
Perhaps its perpetrators hope that it will convince complacent, submissive, incurious
dullards that Yulia seems to have recovered nicely, and that there is no real mystery or
scandal about the Skripals having been poisoned by some Russian operative.
From the resistance , May 24, 2018 4:35:41 PM |
52
@Posted by: BM | May 24, 2018 10:55:51 AM | 29
Agree, "invasive" is, most definitively, a very technical term used only in medical field
by insiders to describe an agressive procedure, mostly consisting in introducing big tubes
with/or cameras inside the body to explore or implant drainages or respirator tubes, which
could imply secondary harm as a possibility but cnosidered less harmful than the necessity of
the exploration or procedure fro the helath of the patient, and which due to that are
performed under anesthesics.
No citizen strange to medical profession could anytime use such term, since it is not of
public domain.
I agree also in that it is difficult believe that a young girl having passed through such
"painful and depressing" experience would not have asked for her close relatives to come in
her support, something that, btw, would have been recommended for any doctor or nurse loyal
to their professional obligation with respect of the well being and full recovering of
patients.
She is obviously quite depressed and most probably psychologically incapable of taking right
decissions, or even counterproductive ones for her, as it usually happens under severe
depression.....
IMO, she is held hostage and under menace of something..her statements sounded like
recited by heart without any hint of personal emotion...She could be under psychiatric drugs,
quite possible...
Here is yet another comparison of the two letters.
In Russian, by Russian :)
Arioch , May 24, 2018 5:12:00 PM |
56karlof1 , May 24, 2018 5:12:50 PM |
57
"Wants
to return home" is the big point not being raised according to Russian political
scientist Igor Shatrov:
"It is unlikely that anyone would want to return to a country accused of poisoning her.
Therefore for me, this phrase is the most significant statement that Julia made."
I must concur. But was that part of the script or said independently?
Seems like B is on a roll lately. That's excellent!
However, I can't agree with the hostage claim proposed here and in many other intelligent
places any longer. For me, the Skripals being merely victims of greater powers involved in
foul play, them being somehow held and silenced against their will - that's completely off
the table.
It's hard to come to terms with it, but the Skripals have been in on the whole charade.
Sergey has been from the beginning, probably in an instrumental way even, but to some degree
Yulia must be complicit in the plot, too.
It's the way she behaves in the Reuters video. Her behavior is actually very
straightforward and lighthearted - and coherently so. No gaps there. She sure shows signs of
being a little nervous, but what media amateur wouldn't be in an interview situation. It's
really only minor nervousness given the fact that the Skripals are at the center of so much
international attention and that the Skripal case is a possible casus belli. She is
unmistakably flirting with the camera and clearly enjoying the attention brought to her. You
can't fake that.
The Russians (and the remaining Skripal family) will have to accomodate the fact that the
Skripals are lost to them. They won't be coming back – because they wouldn't want to.
That talk of returning to Russia "one day" is just that – talk, strategically placed
into the statement and aimed at undermining the Russian ambassador's admirable persistence.
Everything else that she says, or most of it, doesn't matter much. You all are perfectly
right in your analysis of who actually wrote Yulia's script I think, but sadly it's way
beside the point.
The Russian side has likely done so already, but if I were a Russian investigator, I'd
have a look at how well in advance of the flight date Yulia's tickets were booked. The date
as such might be of great importance, too. The Skripal ploy would have been given the green
light by the time Yulia got on that plane. It would have been conceived much earlier and I'd
check that against the airing (or finishing of the movie script) of that weird TV series B
mentioned in one of his earlier articles. In all likelihood, Yulia booked a return ticket,
but just for the sake of completeness, I'd check that, too. Also, what kind of health
insurance did she take out for her trip abroad? Was it really the usual, the bare minimum, so
as not to waste any money on it, or something more extensive? And how much luggage did she
take with her, and what items (not just practical stuff, but some cherished things too,
maybe)? Etc. etc.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
BBC reporting a hoax phone call to Boris Johnson lasting 20 mins from Russian. Brit
government blaming! Russia Kremlin
So in last 2 days they'v dug up the Scripals again,accused Russia of downing a plain with
a missile,reports of new agression against Syria and as a diversion put N.koria back in the
news.
The same old same old!
We will know see,, within hours maybe days a massive attack on Syria/Iran !
They just did the ground work- anti Russia properganda,public distraction.
It's great to see much skepticism here. I see no reason to accept that the alleged event
happened in the first place. Great Britain, the US and Russia are all perfectly well able to
assassinate a couple of civilians if that is their desire.
If these two are alive, I expect they were meant to be alive. If they were meant to be
alive, I see no reason to risk their deaths by deliberately poisoning them (regardless of the
agent used) and then letting them fall into the hands of an emergency room staff - who could
themselves be poisoned or who might accidentally harm (even lethally) the "victims" by
treating them for the wrong agent.
All of the conjecture about Skirpal's ties to the "dodgy dossier" and even that the Clintons
could be the culprits in the dirty deed is based on the belief that the US has two "major"
political parties in serious opposition to one another. I see no evidence of that.
In this particular instance, we have the Clinton Crime family and The Donald - who have
all been good friends for decades. Their daughters both stated during the campaign that
they've been "best friends" since childhood. That could not have been possible with one of
them living under Secret Service watch, even living in the White House - without close ties
between their parents. Further, both Ivanka and Chelsea stated they expect to remain close
friends even after the election.
This is just plain impossible to imagine if the "fire and fury" of the campaign and all
the nasty stuff said during and since were even just exaggerations of real ideological
differences.
I often describe US politics as akin to US football. The Eagles and the Bears both want to
win any given game or championship. The teams get some bonuses for winning. But they are both
playing the same game, and share the proceeds regardless. It used to be that the two "teams"
had different owners (though of the same elite group), but at least since the rise of the
Clinton/DLC, they even share owners, let alone ideologies and "long game" goals.
So I see no reason to believe any of the partisan kabuki theater that oozes out of our
MSM.
The most interesting aspect of the whole Skripal incident was the imposition of D notices on
the media by the UK government. The reasoning was said to be to protect agent Miller but this
was a lie as Miller's association with Skripal was previously well known and bound to come to
the surface. No, the reasons for the D notices were to protect the government's bizarre
narrative of lies and also the likely poisoner which would be our mysterious policeman caught
up in the incident.
I strongly suspect the charade was intimately linked to british special forces captured
unexpectedly in Gouta, Syria whilst assisting the local jihadis in preparing their next false
flag chemical attack which would have brought in a massive western response to try and change
the direction of the conflict. In other words an act of desperation which led to the comical
situation of the authorities having to make the narrative up as they were going along.
It's a fact that allowing the media to swarm all over the place - even if controlled -
would have invariably thrown up scenarios or situations which would have taken control of the
narrative out of the government's hands.
There are a number of reasons to suspect that Sergei Skripal was, and is, being silenced
because of fears of what he might reveal about the Steele dossier. Although he is a minor
character in this affair, there are many facts -- too many for me to go into here -- that
connect him and his alleged MI6 handler Pablo Miller to Christopher Steele and the
dossier.
The entire official story of what happened to Skripal in Salisbury on 4 March is
unbelievable anyway, but the way that he and his daughter Yulia are now being kept
incommunicado looks even more suspicious. The two of them are apparently not even speaking to
their friends and family after being discharged from hospital, even though Yulia phoned her
cousin Viktoria from the hospital in early April.
Add to this the fact that the British authorities are not doing anything to dispel doubts
that the Skripals are acting of their own free will. They have made no effort to allow either
the Russian embassy, or even an independent third party, to speak to either Sergei or
Yulia.
This all suggests that the Skripals are being detained against their will in order to keep
them quiet about something.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:25 am
"British authorities have made no effort to allow either the Russian embassy, or even an
independent third party, to speak to either Sergei or Yulia"
Isn't this disallowed in international relations? And why is Russia rolling over rather
than taking the case to the Hague?
Russia may have decided that taking it seriously would be a mistake by giving it too much
attention with all the distortions that would arrive from the MSM. Putin is a Machiavellian
and doesn't rush into things. I predicted weeks ago that we would hear about the miraculous
efforts of British medicine to "rescue" the Skripals. That's what happened. The Skripals are
being silenced rather than allowed to tell their story. Obvious beyond any doubt.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:31 am
Brilliant piece Daniel Lazare. Many thanks! And as well to Consortium News for
broadcasting. I am getting more than I give to you each month in support. You are a a light
to us moths, most others have been put out.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:42 am
Yes, the isolation of the Skripals strongly suggests UK complicity in the whole
incident.
The lack of transparency requires the presumption of wrongful intent.
Yulia and Sergei Skripal: The father and son whose whereabouts and physical condition are
currently unknown, and whose important story is little-known, massively and scandalously
suppressed and being kept from the awareness of the people of Earth.
Neither U.S. President Donald Trump, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May nor France President
Emmanuel Macron have offered anything approaching a public statement, by way of explanation
-- over the now "vanished" Yulia and Sergei Skripal.
It is equally important to note and remember that none of these "leaders" have issued
public statements with regard to the Douma, Syria confirmed false flag operation. In
particular, they have not apologized for dangerously and illegally launching over 100
missiles on Syria based on an obvious lie.
***
Question:
Will Donald Trump, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron rightfully provide their citizens in
America, Britain and France with logical explanations for the massive unresolved
controversies surrounding the Skripal and Douma events?
Answer:
Only if men and women around the Earth join, accumulate sufficient power, and demand
legitimate, honest answers -- making it impossible for them to further obfuscate, deflect
and/or otherwise ignore.
Thanks Rowan @1. Considering all the digital ink spilt at MoA over the Skirpal Affair, I
expected this news to be highlighted.
This Yulia quote struck me:
"I don't want to describe the details, but the clinical treatment was invasive, painful
and depressing... Our recovery has been slow and extremely painful."
Goodness! Considering the US Senate just confirmed a known torturer to run CIA, I must ask
what kind of "treatment" Yulia received. I presume the neck scar is the result of
endotracheal intubation?
And since visual imprints are so important in perception management, I found it
interesting that this young woman, who was last reported in good health sitting on a park
bench, is filmed in her "coming out" video sitting on a bench in a park-like setting. And
she's writing what we must assume is the handwritten note released to the media - on a pad of
paper sitting on the bench next to her! That's a very awkward way to write, especially since
that note is is such legible, neat script.
The BBC article goes on to state:
"Meanwhile, work to decontaminate the Wiltshire city is still under way with the highest
concentration of the Novichok found at the Skripals' front door."
Still decontaminating the town all this time later?
Rowan @ 1, Daniel @ 51: Julia Skripal appeared to be reading or following a prepared script.
For someone who's been in a coma for 20 days, she looked very well indeed and does not appear
to be suffering PTSD.
How would a person in a coma know if the treatment she was receiving was invasive, painful
and depressing?
Novichok is supposed to be an unstable substance that degrades quickly in humid climatic
conditions or in conditions where it comes into contact with water. Is Salisbury being
decontaminated one brick tile, one shrub, one pigeon at a time?
Hmm .. this is what endotracheal intubation looks like but I can't see that a shunt has
been made beneath the throat and between the collar bones. I too was curious about that neck
wound. http://drkashi.science/endotracheal-intubation/
There's no real Left in the UK anymore, either. The Blairites are still a force with the
Labour party and that party is known as The Red Tories - especially in Scotland - for the
obvious reason!
Even the old Left newspapers - The Guardian, The Observer - are no longer such, as has been
evidenced of late. I no longer read the UK press - Private Eye is my 'paper' reading - and
would not trust one word broadcast by the BBC and, I am sorry to say, Channel
4.
The Guardian and The Observer have never been socialist papers. They were liberal, just like
the democrats in the United States were liberal. And liberals, who are the advance guard of
capitalism, can hardly be called 'of the left'.
The only opponents of capitalism and imperialism are socialists or nationalists, of a kind
rarely seen outside the third world periphery of the system since 1917.
Anyone who sees the fascists and crooks surrounding Trump as being opponents of anything
except the human race is almost as daft as someone who sees the Democrats as part of the
left.
But the real prize for idiocy goes to those sad souls who see the FBI, CIA, MI6 and their
clones as anything but- deepest apologies here to the Mafia and their ilk- criminal gangs, of
the worst kind.
nofollow"
href="https://www.rt.com/uk/427080-skripal-salisbury-nhs-poison/">"Sergei Skripal discharged
from hospital after being poisoned by 'deadly' agent"
The link is to RT, in case anyone missed this report.
It's been a busy "news" week, between significant geopolitical events, the usual US
school massacres, and the bread-and-circuses distraction of a UK Royal Wedding. Perhaps this
is why the above-cited "news" didn't seem to get much attention.
I'll stop enclosing "news" in ironic quotation marks-- the " key on my laptop is
buckling under the strain of overuse. But I used them because every fresh installment of
alleged news about the Skripals simply extends, or exacerbates, the riddle, wrapped in a
mystery, inside an enigma that is l'affaire Skripal.
One reason for the lack of reaction to this latest "development" (those quotes needed
again) is that it is shown through a glass darkly-- the glass being the government controlled
and managed information bubble. Like the earlier "developments", it's eerily
self-contained.
Like many barflies, I have my idiosyncratic axes to grind, soapboxes to climb, bees in
my bonnet, etc. After the mysterious events of 9/11/2001, I coined the term "pernicious
factoids" to describe the bits of manufactured falsehoods and disinformation used to
construct and perpetuate bogus Official Narratives.
For example, not long ago a minor New York Times article about Lee Harvey Oswald's
gravesite began with something like, "When Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy in Dealey
Plaza...". This is a pernicious factoid; they remain embedded like toxic prions in the
collective consciousness, and are regarded as reasonably true, correct, and
meaningful.
Likewise, the other day the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, gave a
routine press conference. As usual, some wretched would-be UK journalist took issue with
Yakovenko's reiterating that the Russians are required by law to interview the Skripals
personally and directly to confirm their status and wishes.
The questioner hectored the ambassador with the point that Yulia Skripal had released
statements through the police indicating that she, at least, did not wish to
meet personally with Russian officials because she was afraid to do so.
Ambassador Yakovenko, also as usual, patiently-- and a bit too diffidently-- explained
that a third-party statement is not the same as first-hand communication. I get it-- he's a
"real" diplomat, not like the whacked-out modern Western berserker-diplomats. So he's not
about to tear this bumptious idiot's head off.
But I wanted to scream. This is the way pernicious factoids work. Everybody in that
room was at least willing to pretend that yeah, OK, Yulia actually did give the
police that statement. Or a statement. Probably. But hmmm, if one really stops and
thinks about it, everything the public has been told about the circumstances of
the, er, events comes from official sources and/or highly-compromised and untrustworthy
mass-media organizations.
So, the ostensibly remarkable development of Sergei Skripal's recovery from a
"military-grade nerve agent" just circles around the disinformation/memory hole. And, since
these virtual "developments" are largely fact-free, the stories usually pad out the minimal
"news" by revisiting and reiterating the same festering gutpile of pernicious factoids we've
been sorting through for months: the supposed doorknob-smearing, the peculiar aspects of the
"poisoning", etc.
End of rant, but only because my " key is overheating and seizing up. ;)
_____________________________________
Bonus Fun Fact: I was curious about the context of Churchill's "riddle" quote, so I
looked it up. According to the "Phrase Finder" website, it was uttered during an October,
1939 radio broadcast: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle,
wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian
national interest."
13 - On the Skripals, no reporter I have read on the release of either Skripal has bothered
to wonder why there are no photos of them at all, especially of the normal press availability
on the hospital steps thanking their doctors, no information on their whereabouts, health or
future plans.
"... Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe, among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently, are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. ..."
"... the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away. ..."
The UK's obsession with the Russian bogeyman doesn't stack up Mary Dejevsky The head of MI5 has joined the security
establishment's anti-Putin onslaught. But his organization agrees that Moscow is not the greatest threat
Today's
speech by the head of MI5 , Andrew Parker, has been presented as a first – the first time the head of the UK's domestic intelligence
service has delivered a speech abroad, specifically at a conference of security heads in Berlin. But this is the only respect in
which it is a first. It might as accurately be described as the latest in a series of public utterances by UK intelligence chiefs
and top brass, which began last autumn and continued with the
head of GCHQ
addressing a cybersecurity conference in Manchester last month.
"MI5 chief: Kremlin is 'chief protagonist' in campaign to undermine west" Read more
In part, this reflects a deliberate decision by the intelligence services and the government that they should be more open about
what they do, with a view to gaining greater public understanding – and expanding recruitment at a time when they face competition
for tech-savvy graduates from richer and less restrictive employers. But this season of intelligence and military speeches has also
facilitated the communication of an apparently co-ordinated message. As a country, the UK now sees
Russia as its prime adversary.
The poisoning of
Sergei Skripal , the former Russian spy, and his daughter in Salisbury took the UK's official anti-Russia stance to new heights.
And its diplomatic success in persuading so many other countries to
expel Russian diplomats in protest – the biggest ever "collective expulsion of security agents", we were told – seems to have
emboldened London to view itself as the potential leader of an international anti-Russia front, as the Guardian
recently
reported .
The invective produced by Parker today – and heavily sold to the media – was, in its way, extraordinary. In tone, it was quite
different from the cold war register, which was formal and, well, cold. This attack was populist, direct, and far outside the diplomatic
register. Here is just a sample.
The Kremlin was engaging in "deliberate, targeted, malign activity intended to undermine our free, open and democratic societies".
The west had to "shine a light through the fog of lies, half-truths and obfuscation that pours out of their propaganda machine".
Russia, he said caustically, had as one of its "central and entirely admirable aims to build Russian greatness on the world stage".
But it had repeatedly chosen "to pursue that aim through aggressive and pernicious actions by its military and intelligence services".
In so doing, it risked becoming "a more isolated pariah".
So long as the UK refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification – ask just who has a monopoly
on a fog of lies.'
Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe,
among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently,
are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. There is a sense too, for the UK at least, that
relations with Russia have been so bad for so long that magnifying the supposed Russia threat is a cost-free enterprise in diplomatic
terms.
It might also be worth considering whether there are budgetary and Brexit angles. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
US and the UK, in particular, scaled back their government-backed research on Russia and lost a great deal of expertise, which they
are now trying to rebuild. That means they have to make a case for more taxpayers' money, and scare tactics are one way to do that.
For the UK, there may also be the fear that it will find the European Union less inclined to keep London in the intelligence loop,
and – at a time when the US is looking a far less reliable ally – it might make sense to play up the Russian bogeyman, not least
as Vladimir Putin begins his fourth term in office. Nothing like starting as you intend to go on.
Yet it is still difficult to see the sense in this. Russia has become inured to UK scolding of this kind, and treats it with contempt
– as its social media response to Parker's speech shows. What is more, so long as the UK maintains its silence on the Skripals' fate
and refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification, I would argue – ask just who has a monopoly on
a "fog of lies".
Nor will the tone necessarily chime well with official views of Russia in Germany and France, which are not necessarily less tough
in practice, but certainly more nuanced, and better informed. The UK seems intent – despite recent legislation about dubious money
in London – in keeping its diplomatic and business relations with Russia in separate boxes. Germany, for one, does not have that
luxury.
The conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a 'safe', useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be
The UK's rhetorical onslaught on Russia is even more puzzling when you examine the security services' own priorities. "Is terrorism
the biggest threat facing the UK?" visitors to the MI5 website are asked in
a pop-up called "fact or fiction". Click no, and this is the response: "The biggest threat we currently face comes from international
terrorist groups and individuals inspired by them. Terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland also continue to pose a serious threat."
Now it is true that the threat from terrorism and Islamic State was also broached by Parker in his speech, but this was not the
section spun in advance to the media; it was not the aspect MI5
wanted above all to be noticed. So the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy
by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away.
• Mary Dejevsky is a former foreign correspondent in Moscow
Fake news, trying to create false connections between police psychological issues and a rather dubious UK poisoning false flag.
Via The Guardian
Almost 100 Wiltshire police officers and staff have sought psychological support after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury,
the Guardian can reveal.
Among those who have asked for help were officers who initially responded to the collapse of the former Russian spy Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and those who were at or close to the various investigation sites in subsequent days and weeks.
Some reported feeling disorientated and anxious while others were concerned about the possible long-term health effects on
the public.
While the Skripal poisoning story has faded from much of the mainstream media news cycle, as it was increasingly exposed as a
complete hoax and embarrassment for the May government, the Guardian appears to be trying to resurrect "the Russians did"
Novichok narrative.
It is about time your stupid leader and her clown were put on the stage to explain to all the world why they chose to defame
the integrity of Russia in such an unbelievable set of circumstances that only children under the age of ten would not understand
!! How can any Nation since this demonic happening , ever trust this self - centred Bozo from ever making a sensible judgement
for the future of mankind !
UK has lost it completely and the Guardian has fallen prey to the CIA Mockingbird Operation (infiltration and manipulation
of media). Used to be a good paper under Alan Rushbridger and protection of Snowden, Assange etc. Now it has lost it altogether
with useless editorial board. The woman in charge must have something in common with Nikki Haley: incapable of nuance and irrationally
convinced of her being right (without research lots of claims about Assad, Putin etc.).
"They are liars. And they know that they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel
laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep
lying...."
Notable quotes:
"... of a type developed by Russia ..."
"... The western modus operandi is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in Alice in Wonderland . ..."
"... The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in 1997. ..."
"... In the meantime, President Putin weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to Moscow? ..."
"... The British PowerPoint presentation did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including, inter alia ..."
"... bourrage de crâne ..."
"... On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. ..."
"... how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise a false flag attack against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London. ..."
"... A prima facie case can be made that the British government is lying about the Skripal affaire . Suspicion always falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government appears to have leaked it to the press. The Times published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire across the Mainstream Media. The Daily Mirror put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible? ..."
"... The secret assassin's manual reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit. ..."
"... déjà vu. ..."
"... "They are liars. And they know that they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying...." ..."
"... The Tories are trying doggedly to maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation. ..."
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy day in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei
Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub
in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they
collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or
was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark affaire and the object of a hit by persons
unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?
The police received a call that day at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency
services were despatched immediately. The Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local
police launched an investigation. It began to look like attempted murder, but the police urged
patience, saying it could take months before they might know what had happened and who, if
anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided that it did not need to wait for a police investigation.
"The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6.
Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four years later in an exchange of agents with
the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old
scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary,
Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect in what looked like
an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.
On 12 March the foreign
secretary summoned the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had been
used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian
government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24
hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of
chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons
that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia " (italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word
having various possible translations into English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May
claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve
agent (also known as A-234), that it was " highly likely " that the Russian government
was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act
by the Russian State against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this
potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of
others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian
government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17
over the Ukraine. Within hours of the destruction of MH 17, the United States and its
vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.
The western modus operandi is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to
conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or
rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called novichok delivered to London, did President
Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime
minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia guilty as charged. No
objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidence was
necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in Alice in
Wonderland .
On 13 March the Russian embassy informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was
not involved in any way with the Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came
the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova,
characterised the British démarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks
must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was
a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the
rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately
requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance
with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador
visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the
British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury]
incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia.
Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British
side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged
poisoning of the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had
agreed when the OPCW was established in 1997.
On 14 March the British government expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the
Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in
Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to
show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to
appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal --
refused to join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled sixty
diplomats and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with
sixty expulsions and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be
building toward a major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the
possibility of
military action .
In the meantime, President Putin weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised,"
he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow
themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football
World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive
and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British
case against Russia began to fall apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the
Russian newspaper Kommersant leaked a
British PowerPoint presentation sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted, inter
alia , that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified
the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by
Russia". Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out
that the formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident
and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book
(published in 2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com . In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright
undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent.
Amongst those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United
States. The Russian embassy in London noted in a published
report that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named
'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of
chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a
series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by
Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an
attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to
refer to "Russian malign activity" including, inter alia , the "invasion" of Georgia
in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and
interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are audacious lies ,
easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated to the Salisbury
incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the British
PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda, bourrage de crâne , as
preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW
in The Hague. Russia would then be directly involved in the investigation and would have access
to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the
perpetrators. The British government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did,
refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had
sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all,
it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused
to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive
council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of
approval. The British were attempting to hijack the OPCW as a
potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked. On 12
April the OPCW released a report stating
that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the
toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said nothing about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The
British accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were
still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used against the Skripals was "of high
purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report avoids a straight answer. If it
was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant acting and killed the
Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing. Something does
not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at a meeting in
Moscow provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a
substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an
instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO
countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so.
Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the
A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover," according to
the Russian embassy in London , "considering its high volatility, the detection of this
substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as
the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have
tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic
chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a
well-known Swiss lab , which
promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they said
that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical". Unless Porton
Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the
OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve
agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the
public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US,
Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow:
how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6
authorise a false
flag attack against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the
prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of
evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A prima facie case can be made that the British government is lying about the
Skripal affaire . Suspicion always falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind
clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now
saying that they have other top secret evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately
it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government appears to have leaked it to the
press. The
Times published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it
spread like wild fire across the Mainstream Media. The
Daily Mirror put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These
stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that
gullible?
The secret assassin's manual reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit
document produced by White Russians in Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference
in British elections and planning for a socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news".
Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack
the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a
charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was
bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just
as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so,
since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in
fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if they have something to hide. It is déjà
vu. Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth? Are there any honest British
cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is
bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought to prevent any outside contact with the
Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have
until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen in violation of
British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which the
British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's
family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are
British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being
manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country
in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are
they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on a
statement attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it begins
to look that way . Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a
fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British
authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even German politicians,
amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is underway.
Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe
anything the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel
laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep
lying...." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the same, he could have been. Are
not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?
The Tories are trying doggedly to maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if
it eventuates that the Tories have lied deliberately for political gain, at the risk of
destabilising European, indeed world peace and security, the Tory government should be forced
to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British electorate can decide whether it wants
to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who risk to provoke war against the
Russian Federation.
Where are the Scripals? How are they feeling these days? (68 days and counting), Are they alive ?
Notable quotes:
"... To clarify: Sergei Skripal has been suspected of playing a role in concocting the fake "Steele dossier" that helped launch the Russiagate NARRATIVE. ..."
"... The "dossier" was also used by Comey's FBI to obtain FISA warrants to monitor Trump campaign communications. (The NSA had intercepts all along but Comey's FBI needed a "provenance.") ..."
"... Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, the absence of questions in the British media speaks volumes. "The truth is the first casualty in a war." ..."
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case. There is one outright bizarre thing
which I initially dismissed, but which really is becoming disturbing: the fact that the Brits
are apparently holding Sergei and Iulia Skripal incommunicado. In other words, they have been
kidnapped.
There was this one single telephone call between Iulia Skripal and her sister, Victoria, in
which Iulia said that she was okay (she was clearly trying to reassure Victoria) but it was
clear that she could not speak freely. Furthermore, when Victoria mentioned that she would want
to visit Iulia, the latter reply 'nobody will give you a visa'. After that – full
silence. The Russian consulate has been making countless requests to
have a visit, but all that the Brits have done since is have Scotland
Yard post a letter which was evidently not written by Iulia and which said " I have
access to friends and family, and I have been made aware of my specific contacts at the Russian
Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can. At the moment I do not
wish to avail myself of their services, but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them
". What friends?! What family?! Nonsense!
Her sister tried to contact her many times through various channels, including official
ones, and then in total despair, she posted the following message on Facebook:
" My darling sister, Yulia! You are not communicating with us, and we don't know
anything about you and Sergey Victorivich. I know that I have no right to interfere in your
affairs without asking your permission, but I worry too much. I worry about you and your dad.
I also worry about Nuar. [Nuar is Yulia Skrial's dog, whom she left to stay at a kennel
center, while she was traveling to the UK.] He is now at the dog hotel, and they want to get
paid. We have to decide something what to do with him. I am ready to take him and to take
care of him until you come back home. Besides Nuar, I am concerned about your apartment and
your car. Nothing has been decided about their safety and maintenance. We can help with all
that, but I need your power of attorney in my or my sister Lena's name. If you think that all
of these is important, draw up a power of attorney form in a Russian consulate in any
country. If you won't do that, we will understand and won't interfere in your
affairs.
Vika "
No reply ever came.
I just entered the following query into Google: "
Skripal ". April 10 th has an entry saying that she was released from the
hospital. That is the most recent one I have found. I looked on Wikipedia , the
same thing, there is nothing at all.
I have to admit that when I first heard the Russian complaints I figured that this was no
big deal. I thought " the Brits told the Skripals that Putin tried to poison them, they are
probably afraid, and possibly still sick from whatever it is which made them sick, but the
Brits would never outright kidnap two foreign citizens, and most definitely not in such a
public way ".
I am not so sure anymore.
First, let's get the obvious one out of the way: the fear for the security of the Skripals.
That is utter nonsense. The Brits can organize a meeting between а Russian diplomat in
the UK at a highly protected UK facility, with tanks, SAS Teams on the standby, helicopters in
the air, bombers, etc. That Russian diplomat could speak to them through bullet-proof glass and
a phone. And, since the Russians are all so dangerous, he can be searched for weapons. All
which the Skripals need to do is to tell him/her "thank you, your services are not needed".
Conversation over. But the Brits refuse even that.
But let's say that the Skripals are so totally terrified of the evil Russians, that they
categorically refuse. Even by video-conference. It would be traumatic for them, right?
Okay.
What about a press conference then?
Even more disturbing is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody in the western corporate
media is asking for an interview with them. Snowden can safely speak from Russia and address
even large conferences, but the Skripals can't speak to anybody at all?
But here is the worst part of this: it has been two months already since the Skripals are
held in total secrecy by the UK authorities. Two months, that is 60 days. Ask any specialist on
interrogation or any psychologist what kind of effect 60 days of "specialized treatment" can do
to a person.
I am not dismissing the Russian statements about "kidnapping" anymore. What I see is this:
on substance, the Skripal false flag has crashed and burned, just like MH17 or the Douma
chemical attack, but unlike MH17 or Douma, the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has
the potential to result in a gigantic scandal, not just for the May government, but for all
those spineless Europeans who showed "solidarity" with Britain. In other words, the Skripals
will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must either be killed or totally
brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a scandal of planetary
magnitude.
I can't pretend like my heart goes out to Sergei Skripal: the man was an officer who gave an
oath and who then betrayed his country to the British (he was a British agent, not a Russian
one as the press writes). Those holding him today are his former bosses. But Iulia? She is
completely innocent and as of April 5 th (when she called her sister Victoria), she
was clearly in good health and with a clear mind. Now she has been disappeared and I don't know
which is worse, the fact that she might never reappear or that she might one day reappear
following months of British "counseling". As for her father, he paid for his betrayal and he
too deserves a better fate than being poisoned, used and then disappeared.
In the big scheme of things (the Zionists war against our entire planet), two individuals
like Sergei and Iulia Skripal might not matter. But I think that the least we can do is to
remember them and their plight.
This also begs the question of what kind of society we live in. I am not shocked by the fact
that the British state would resort to such methods (they have always used them). I am shocked
that in a so-called western "democracy" with freedom, pluralism and "European values" (whatever
that means) the Brits could get away with this.
How about some "solidarity" with the Skripals – you, Europeans?!
As noted on this site some three weeks ago, former British ambassador Craig Murray suggested
some time ago that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were most likely murdered by Western secret
services in order to keep the "Russiagate" fiction (somewhat) alive.
Sergei cannot win – even if he was NOT involved in Russiagate, murdering him creates
flexibility to hang the story on him without contradiction. Yulia is icing on the cake
– "Surely Her Majesty's Government wouldn't murder a pretty girl like Yulia!"
Rather bizarrely, it appears appears that all premises connected with the Skripals are to
be demolished, purely to protect the public, you understand.
To clarify: Sergei Skripal has been suspected of playing a role in concocting the fake
"Steele dossier" that helped launch the Russiagate NARRATIVE.
The "dossier" was also used by Comey's FBI to obtain FISA warrants to monitor Trump
campaign communications. (The NSA had intercepts all along but Comey's FBI needed a
"provenance.")
Whether Skripal was actually involved in inventing the dossier or not, his absence will be
used to milk the narrative afloat a little longer.
Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, the absence of questions in the British media speaks
volumes. "The truth is the first casualty in a war."
Russia should request a third party for instance a well known British public figure as an
intermediary to contact Skripals on behalf of Russia. The UK wil not be able to claim that
such figure will put undue pressure on the Skripals and would be forced to either facilitate
contact or be exposed as actually kidnapping the Skripals.
Potential intermediaries Corbyn, Galloway, UN representative, Tulsi Gabbard. There are
numerous candidates.
In other words, the Skripals will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must
either be killed or totally brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a
scandal of planetary magnitude.
That certainly explains why Britain did not kill them with Novichok.
The British are working hard on new super-secret identities for the Scripals. They are so
secret that even the Scripals would not be allowed to know them. Technically, the British
could tell the Scripals their new identities, but then they would have to kill them, in order
to keep them secret.
It is clear that every person including The Saker who write about the Skripals and Russian
affairs do not have the in-depth knowledge of John Helmer the longest serving independent
western journalist in Moscow. In this post by John Helmer dated 23/03/2018
he writes about the British Court of Protection's findings.
Below are two excerpts (in parenthesis his comments) but I implore you to read the whole
article as well as other postings on the potential appointments in Putins new government.
"British High Court Justice David Williams has issued the first court adjudication of
evidence presented by the British Government of what happened to Sergei Skripal and Yulia
Skripal when they succumbed to poisoning in Salisbury on March 4. Following three days of
closed-door hearings this week in London, the judge issued a ruling for publication
yesterday."
"Representing the Skripals, Vikram Sachdeva QC told the judge "that in this case at present
it did not appear practicable or appropriate to seek the views of others who might be
interested in the welfare of Mr Skripal (his mother perhaps) or Ms Skripal (perhaps a
fiancé).
" the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has the potential to result in a gigantic
scandal, not just for the May government, but for all those spineless Europeans who showed
"solidarity" with Britain . "
Based on recent history, one can safely bet that there will be no scandal.
The bombing of the Lockerbie plane was an evil crime that took 270 innocent lives, and was
attributed by the official UK/US intelligence centres to the former Libyan government under
late President Gaddafi.
When this government came under NATO attack in 2011, its foreign minister Moussa Koussa
defected and sought refuge in London. He had previously been head of Libyan secret services
for 15 years (!!!), and as such, would have organised and supervised the Lockerbie "terror"
attack.
What did the UK/US governments do with him? Send him to trial at the Hague? Of course not.
He was sent to a safe heaven somewhere in the NATO proxy EAU.
Nobody cares about the victims of false flag attacks, quite the contrary: the less
investigations, the more efficient the false flag.
Let us review: Every effort by the British to bring down the government of the United States under President Donald Trump has
failed. MI6 agent Christopher Steele's dodgy dossier now stands exposed as the only basis for the launching of Trumpgate by the corrupt
Obama intelligence team, and the perpetrators are themselves now facing criminal prosecution; the Skripal case has disappeared from
the media, as the connections to the same Christopher Steele were coming to the fore; the Syrian chemical weapons fraud concocted
by the British-run White Helmets has now been exposed internationally as a Nazi-like staged affair to justify a military assault.
That assault, in which Trump was tricked into going along with the British and the French, effectively declared that the international
law established after World War II, through the United Nations, to prevent another world war, was dead.
The Empire will not go quietly into the night. Bibi Netanyahu's antics -- claiming "proof" that Iran is still developing nuclear
weapons -- is being ridiculed even by former Israeli intelligence officials as re-packaged news, already known by the IAEA, and proving
nothing. But the British have always used the Israeli right-wing, and the Saudi Royal family, to provoke divisions and, when necessary,
to start wars. With Trump having cooperated with Putin in defeating ISIS in Syria, and swearing that he wants to get the U.S. out
of Syria altogether and "stop being the world's policeman," the British are desperately pulling every possible string to drag the
U.S. into more wars.
The same situation exists in Ukraine. Poroshenko today launched his "Joint Forces" operation, consolidating the National Guard,
the National Police, and the disparate neo-Nazi militias under central army control, committed to a military solution to the Donbas.
A new war in Syria or Ukraine could quickly explode into war with Russia, and a new world war, this time with nuclear weapons.
And yet, as demonstrated in Korea, when the United States works with China and Russia, miracles can happen. The "permanent crisis"
in Korea, like the "permanent crisis" in the Middle East -- both the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Sunni-Shi'a conflict -- have been
intentionally maintained by the British and their assets as cockpits for war between East and West, to keep the major powers divided,
to the benefit of the British Empire which controls the financial system centered in the City of London and Wall Street.
But the New Silk Road is threatening that "divide and conquer" mentality. The win-win policy of China's Belt and Road Initiative,
transforming the "Third World" into modern agro-industrial nation states through modern infrastructure development, has demonstrated
that conflicts based on ethnicity, religion, territorial issues and the like can be overcome based on advancing the common interests
of all nations and all peoples.
The role of the United States in this global crisis is determining. With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's historic summit
with Xi Jinping last week, the three great cultures of Russia, China, and India are now working together in creating a New Paradigm
for mankind. Lyndon LaRouche has long insisted that the "Four Powers" of Russia, China, India and the United States is the necessary
combination needed to end the world of Empire once and for all.
President Trump has repeatedly stressed that being friends with Russia and China "is a good thing, not a bad thing," which is
the core reason that British intelligence launched the Russiagate coup attempt in the first place. If Trump is to survive, the American
people must identify the British role, free Trump of the British coup attempt, and back his best impulses to join fully with America's
natural allies in Russia and China, through full participation in the New Silk Road.
LaRouchePAC organizers across the country are reporting the strong response to this call to end the Empire, to join the BRI, and
to end the containment of the American people by the Wall Street-controlled "two-party system." Trump has, in this case, shown the
way, attacking Republicans and Democrats with equal vigor when they peddle the need to confront Russia and China. The new paradigm
is not only within reach, but is absolutely necessary if the British war plan is to be defeated.
With well-deserved doubt greeting every strategic claim coming from the City of London and
its allied forces on Wall Street and in Brussels, resulting from the ongoing exposure of their
lies, e.g. on "Russiagate" and the use of "chemical weapons", there is an unprecedented
opportunity to break with the Old Paradigm on its weakest flank, the lie that the economy is
strong and growing.
With one provocation after another, each more transparently false than the previous one, the war faction of City of London
imperial oligarchs and their Wall Street neo-con/neo-lib partners continue their efforts to sabotage the potential of the New
Paradigm, which is emerging in Eurasia to be a worldwide movement, with breathtaking speed.
Though Russiagate, the Skripal poisoning, and the Douma chemical weapons False Flag hoax have been exposed as originating in
the diseased minds of British intelligence circles, they are at it again, with Bibi Netanyahu claiming he has "proof" that Iran
never ended its nuclear program, attempting to trap the U.S. into yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, and possible
nuclear confrontation with Russia.
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
"... I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture become dominant. It's an interesting read. ..."
"... Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play. Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well. The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The hour is too serious for these trifles. Lots of laughter. ..."
"... It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed. The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers. That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line? ..."
"... My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff. They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised. ..."
Sir Mark, bless him, has told an MP during a committee meeting, that the armed forces, MI-5, MI-6 and GCHQ do not know who or
indeed what sickened the Skripals, pere et fille , in Salisbury. He doesn't seem to have mentioned the police. So, basically,
pilgrims, Teresa May, the queen's first minister has insistently and incessantly accused the Russians of a crime of which our British
cousins know precious little. In a closely related development, it is now revealed that the Britishers sealed up Skripal's house
after the poisoning event leaving the black Persian shown above and two guinea pigs to die of thirst and hunger within. It would
seem likely that they knew they were doing this since they would have searched the house first. No? Perhaps they thought that the
cat might be a threat as a being of possible Iranian descent. This is impressive stuff. pl
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-01/uk-has-not-yet-identified-skripal-poisoning-suspects
These false flag ops are all so shabby in their execution. The lack of thoroughness and imagination on the part of the governments
running them is really disappointing. For example, if I was running an investigation into the Skripal incident, I would have captured
the cat and rodents and run pathology tests on them to see what bio/chem agents might be in their systems. Also, because they
might escape and become a vector of further infection. That seems like it would be SOP. So I'd do it even if I knew the story
was BS to create the appearance of reality. Then, I could always state that the pets should signs of Russian engineered bio/chem
agents. Could even create a video of the pets dying some horrible death due to the agents. That's more better BS.
And yet, this appears to be a lie as well. An earlier piece in the British news claims the pets were taken to Porton Down for
examination and testing soon after the incident. Seems more likely they eliminated evidence and then came up with the cover story
about how the animals were "forgotten about" and locked in the house for a month, implying totally unimportant for the investigation.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/...
I hope she and Johnson pay the price for this folly. May it be steep! Very. very steep.
How these two suckered so many nations foolishly into sending diplomats home reflected respect for UK policy toward Russia.
These nations will need to think long and hard about following any such UK lead in future.
This week, the US took down the Russian flag flying over Russian real estate in Seattle. Shameful!
I don't know much about the dynamics of British politics but as a light observer of British news I wonder why Theresa May remains
prime minister? She became prime minister after the historic Brexit vote. Promptly takes the country to an election and botches
it for the Tories. Then bungles the Brexit negotiations. Runs a floundering government. Now comes up with accusations against
the Russians in the Skripal affair with no evidence presented but looking more foolish as her story comes under scrutiny.
I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors
and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture
become dominant. It's an interesting read.
2 cats and 2 guinea pigs were locked up for 9 days in Skipal's house, in the hope of proving that the Russians are guilty.
When the police reopened the house, they found four bodies. the veterinary faculty is positive, both cats died of starvation.
Guinea pigs, some say, began to be worked by hungry cats, accelerating their deaths. Unspeakable bloodshed. In this whole case,
it's THE revolting detail, among many others. Poor beasts.
Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play.
Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's
infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting
its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well.
The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The
hour is too serious for these trifles.
Lots of laughter.
Presumably there are bigger guns in the background if information that would really threaten national security or the lives
of serving officers is in danger of being released. The D-Notice system itself seems to be a more or less voluntary affair -
It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed.
The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers.
That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line?
My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff.
They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns
to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised.
It would seem that the so-called British prime minister Theresa May, leader of the
Conservative Party [who heads up a minority Tory Government only kept in power through a
confidence and
supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party] has forgotten that there is such a
matter as reality backed up by
solid strong evidence and grounded in
rational fact . It has been a consistent theme of my writings over the last near two years
now that Theresa May is not only a light weight with little leadership talents, but also
unhinged and dangerous. Indeed, Mrs. May has become something of a loose cannon on deck
deluding herself to the truth of the matter that she badly messed up the General Election of
2017 and just about everything else she inherited as prime Minister and her time is long
overdue to Leave 10 Downing Street.
One of the more alarming aspects of the near two-year-old nightmarish May Ministry has been
the near total casual evisceration of consistent truth telling and consistency of position
regarding fundamental political and philosophical questions of judgement and values which goes
to the heart of Leadership. It has not just been the near complete collapse of the UK
Government's negotiating position vis-à-vis Brussels and Michel Barnier. It has not been
the incompetent and disastrous fashion Mrs. May has governed losing one Cabinet minister after
another in rapid succession. It has not just been the lies that Theresa May has poured forth
internally.
It has been the growth under Theresa May and her
Home Office of almost Nazi style black op false flag operations and exercises
- conducted by Mrs. May's personal Gestapo MI5 - as an instrument of government policy in order
to control and manipulate the uneducated masses of the UK and turn the mass of the UK
population into an even more disgusting Peter Bazgallete Endemol style Big Brother
feeding frenzy dump. The distortion of mass public opinion in the UK and the dumbing down
across all sections of society has been deeply disturbing and frustrating to watch, but not the
least bit surprising. In Theresa May's extreme and increasingly desperate quest to hold on to
the title and position of prime Minister, May has become even far more dangerous than I ever
could have imagined. Theresa May is such a shallow empty third rate politician she will say
anything and do anything to hold on to power just for the sake of it to spite her internal Tory
Party enemies such as George Osborne. After less than two years in the job Theresa May has
managed to achieve the unthinkable. She has made Gordon Brown's Premiership look like a model
for stable Government.
May, after botching badly her gift of an early General Election from the powers that be in
Washington DC, has basically conducted the most embarrassing and weak negotiation in modern
political history with the European Union 27. Unable to deliver the massive majority that
elements in DC and Berlin/Brussels were banking on, May has had to resort to increasingly wild,
desperate and highly dangerous tactics to remain in Downing Street, attempting desperately to
shore up and re-invigorate her obviously dying leadership and crumbling administration. Which
brings us to the subject of Russia, a country and people I have tremendous respect and
admiration for and has been treated terribly by the West where I grew up. I am appalled at how
the Russian people have been treated and spoken of and harassed and targeted by the right wing
English Tory Government of Theresa May. Where to begin with? Hillary Clinton's pathetic
whinging and moaning blaming her loss on the Russians? Theresa May's bigoted, xenophobic,
dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric? The EU's expansion and NATO encroachments right up to the
borders of Russia itself in violation of understandings and promises made at the end of the
last Cold War? The 'shock' doctrine capitalism of the West injected without proper thought and
planning post-Gorbachev? Theresa May, let us be blunt, is in the pocket of certain deeply
anti-Russian forces in Washington DC and Brussels. This group of 'foreign policy' and 'national
security' experts and their allies who [seem to be everywhere] hate Russia. For what reason I
think I know and it has all the hallmarks of Nazism.... all over it. It stinks to hell of
Nazism.
Let us be very clear, Russia is not a threat to the UK and has not interfered or attacked UK
vital national interests. Russia is not interested in attacking the UK or UK interests. Russia
is not an enemy of all civilised freedom loving peoples. It is in fact a great guardian of
them. And it has been treated terribly by the West, misunderstood and disrespected beyond
belief. The so-called poisoning of Sergei Skripal was just that, so-called. It never happened.
Sergei Skripal was not poisoned with Novichok. The nerve agent, if one was even used which I
highly doubt, did not come from Russia. The chemical nerve agent is not Russian and did not
come from Russian Labs. The Russian State and Russian Government had nothing to do with it. No
Russian agents, assets, personnel were involved in this most disgusting, appalling, freak show
pathetic English MI5/6 spectacle of Salisbury. One wonders since the English always boast
non-stop about how great their country is and how their intelligence and security services are
the best in the world. In fact they are rubbish. How could Britain's so-called domestic
security service, the all seeing [supposedly], all hearing [supposedly], all knowing
[supposedly] all mighty [supposedly] MI5 allow a chemical nerve agent like Novichok into the UK
and then allow it to be transported to Salisbury and then administered first in Yulia Skripal's
car, then it became the Mill Pub, then it became Zissi Reastaurant, then MI5/6 finally, finally
settled on....the door handle. If this had really occurred like the English State and
Establishment want us to believe and would have us believe then all of Salisbury would be dead
by now if it had really been Novichok. It never happened. The whole Skripal affair was made up
by the wildly anti-Russian CIA/BND controlled Theresa May and her English Nazi style lackeys
whether they be in the English Government, media, local authorities, police or population at
large - and their pay masters in DC and Brussels.
The whole Salisbury/Skripal affair was made up, plotted, stage managed and produced by
British, American and German intelligence services. Everything the UK Government under Theresa
May said about the Salisbury affair was pure lies, scripted and made up as talking points sent
from Washington DC and Brussels. Everything May said, and Boris Johnson, and Amber Rudd and
Philip Hammond with regards to Russia and the Salisbury affair was pure lies. The entire story
the English put forward regarding the Salisbury affair kept changing and there were terrible
inconsistencies. The whole episode from start to finish was a classic English Monty Python
circus act. The Salisbury-Skripal affair was pure English Tory lies. Besides Theresa May who
ran the Home Office when all these terrible things [apparently] were going on, knew all about
it, did not lift a finger to stop it, did not put up a fight or even resign and lead a
rebellion from the backbenches. Theresa May authorised everything she now claims is a terrible
threat to UK National Security. The woman must go. .
The world was told by the British prime Minister the nerve agent used was a military grade
Novichok chemical only from Russia. The creator of Novichok said if exposed to it you either
die a painful slow death or if you do miraculously survive you will be a vegetable the rest of
your life. So how come Yulia Skripal is up and singing and dancing and checking herself out of
the hospital? And what about Sergei Skripal? I've lost track? Is he still in intensive care in
the hospital? Or has he been able to miraculously recover and check himself out? And the police
officer also made a very speedy recovery. The police have still not been able to find any
suspects even though there is a huge and expensive massive police operation under way. The
majority of the English police like MI5 are utterly useless. The Chief Executive of Porton Down
stated that Porton Down was unable to verify that the Novichok chemical agent came from Russia.
The OPCW review was completely flawed and biased against the Russian Government.
Yet Mrs. May seemed to be rather enjoying her pseudo-role as the new found Amazonian
suffragette Wonder Woman FemiNazi, the instrument of the Americans and Germans to take down the
'Evil Empire' of the brilliant and visionary President Vladimir Putin who unlike Theresa May
has got his country back strongly and proudly on its strong feet. I suppose Mrs. May was
desperate for a 'Falklands' style moment to rescue her dying leadership, and for a brief time
it seemed to be working. Mrs. May had successfully wiped off the media agenda any mention of
the crucial and critical final stages of the UK-EU divorce negotiations. There had been a
flurry of right wing press briefing against Jeremy Corbyn in the lead up to the Salisbury
affair just like before the Manchester bombing during the General Election of 2017 which May
called. May and her backers had calculated - that in order to bolster her position, take the
fight to the Russians [which Mrs. Clinton was supposed to have done], weaken Jeremy Corbyn
[which she failed to do fatally last year], change the UK narrative on Brexit and impress May's
supporters - a black op false flag trashing Russia and the Russian people and the great Russian
President on the eve of President Putin's historic fourth election victory and the glorious
World Cup in Moscow - would do the trick nicely for Mrs. May's position. As I have been writing
consistently, if Mrs. May is so desperate and crazy and power mad to hold on to her position
that she is willing to start a war with a vastly superior and vastly stronger country like
Russia, she has completely lost the plot and must go.
After May's appalling power grab at the EU27 Council Summit in March she could not believe
her luck. The EU27 were all lined up behind her as the anti-Russian warrior princess egging her
on to do their bidding in their unofficial war against Russia. This would be the new security
role for Britain in Europe once out of the EU, the anti-Russian Trojan horse leading a robust
and united anti-Russian global coalition in Europe and beyond to effect regime in the Kremlin
on behalf of the EU and their American allies. Unfortunately for Mrs. May the wheels started to
come off this unbelievable, wacky, crazy, ridiculous and extremely dangerous Anti-Russian
foreign policy with another false flag black op in Syria this time. From Salisbury and all the
lies the English told there we jumped to the sands of the Middle East and all the lies that the
Americans have told there along with the British. I could not believe what was going on before
my very eyes.
For a split second it looked like the world was on the brink of an all out war between
American and Russia in the Middle East. Do Mrs. May and her supporters really want to start a
Third World War in the Middle East just so she can pretend to be prime minister for a year or
two more? Douma was carried out by German secret service intelligence, the BND, in conjunction
with the CIA and MI6. Again, this was not the fault of the Russians or Assad Syrian forces, but
rather US backed rebels. However, the consequences of Douma are even more profound
geopolitically than what happens in some provincial English town. Theresa May has succeeded in
driving a wedge between Trump and President Putin and has successfully destroyed any hope of a
rapprochement and detente between Washington DC and Moscow. That is bad for the peace and
security of the international order. Thanks Theresa! The world came very close to a possible
nuclear confrontation between America and Russia, completely unthinkable during the last Cold
War, in the sands of the Middle East only a couple of weeks ago. In this New Cold War, which is
merely a preparation and build up phase to a much bigger confrontation, all the rules of the
old Cold War have changed. I have never felt more ashamed and more embarrassed about being a
British citizen in my life.
The anti-Russian bigotry and racism and xenophobia displayed by the English and their
Government against the Russian people and Russian interests is not something I will ever forget
and has been deeply disturbing, troubling and deeply concerning. I wonder where all this
anti-Russian war mongering is leading? Meanwhile back on the domestic home front after the near
clash between the USA and Russia was avoided, May's Government has been crumbling. May lost a
senior Remain supporter, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd, and has boxed herself into a corner
with her 'good friends' in the DUP who now realise May was just using them for her own ends and
was prepared to drop them quickly once she had achieved what she was ordered to achieve by DC
and Brussels. It will be fascinating to observe who survives this Theresa May Tory English MI5
car crash of Her Majesty's Government. But what I have seen of heard and experienced in England
of the anti-Russian bigotry is something that will remain with me for a lifetime.
"... Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense. ..."
"... In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank. ..."
"... All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security. ..."
"... It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier. ..."
Amidst speculation that British government has imposed reporting restrictions, British authorities admit they have no suspect
in Skripal case
A week ago the British media were full of reports from the usual anonymous sources of a breakthrough in the Skripal case.
Allegedly the British authorities by comparing CCTV pictures from Salisbury and details of travellers to and from Britain had
been to identify the persons who were supposedly responsible for the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal. These stories came with
further stories of a Russian James Bond style assassin – "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – who together with his team had supposedly
carried out the attack. The stories about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" came with a bizarre identikit picture supposedly of him,
which was too ridiculous to take seriously.
In an
article
I wrote for The Duran on 24th April 2018 I expressed skepticism about these claims
.it looks to me as if despite all the claims to the contrary the police investigation of the Skripal case has made little actual
progress. The British seem to have little more knowledge of who carried out the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal and why than
they did when the investigation began. Could it possibly be because they are looking in the wrong place?
Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence
Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims
about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense.
Here is how Sir Mark Sedwill's testimony is reported by
The Guardian
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to
identify the individual or individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security adviser
has disclosed.
The comments by Sir Mark Sedwill punctured hopes that the police and other security agencies had pinpointed suspects but were
withholding the name or names from the public.
Asked by an MP at a Commons defence committee hearing if he knew the individuals responsible, he replied curtly: "Not yet."
Sedwill, who coordinates the work of the MI6, MI5, the surveillance agency
GCHQ and others, did not elaborate but among problems that have
hampered the agencies is a lack of CCTV coverage in Salisbury compared with London. Known Russian spies based in Britain have
also been investigated and ruled out.
In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank.
All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently
descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the
product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal
request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security.
It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British
authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele,
the compiler of the Trump Dossier.
There are even suggestions that Sergey Skripal may have had a hand in producing the Trump Dossier, and that this was the reason
for the attack on him.
Whilst all this may be true, I have to say that Sergey Skripal – identified as a British spy by the Russians in 2004 and isolated
from Russia in the leafy British town of Salisbury since 2010 – seems an unlikely source for the Trump Dossier, largely fictitious
though that strange concoction is.
1. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply to NeoCon targets.
The Skripal
and Douma Incidents Are Parts of One Plan to Bring Russia Down – Chemist Innocent
until proven guilty? Not if you're in the line of fire of the Endless War Lobby, comrade.
Russia was accused of trying to poison the Skripals before a proper criminal investigation had
even begun. The Syrian government was blamed for a chemical weapons attack, before we had
independently verification that a chemical weapons attack had even taken place. The 'Official
Narrative' on both cases has unravelled spectacularly. No 'smoking gun' evidence of either
Russian involvement in the Skripal case or of the Douma CW attack has been produced. On the
contrary, witnesses testified last week at The Hague that the Douma attack didn't happen.
But we're expected not to notice -- as the news cycle -- conveniently for the accusers-
moves on to other stories.
2. Rupert Murdoch's Times newspaper plays an utterly pernicious role in British
public life.
It was the Times which demanded action from Theresa May against Russia. It was the Times
which has demanded (repeatedly, and again after the Skripal incident) that Ofcom acted against
Russian media in the UK, such as RT. It was the Times, which accuses Russian media of peddling
'fake news', which reported Sergei Skripal as dead on its
12th March front page .
It was The Times which, on 14th March, falsely reported that 'almost 40' people had needed
treatment in Salisbury, prompting Dr Stephen Davies, Comsultant in Emergency Medicine to write
to the paper stating 'May I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent
poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant
poisoning.'
It was The Times, which on the day the US/UK and France launched illegal attacks on
Syria in response to the unverified chemical weapons attack at Douma, carried a front page
attack on British academics who dare to challenge the War Party line on Syria. It was The Times
which smeared other critics of western foreign policy as 'Russian trolls', including a peace
campaigner from Finland who had been battling cancer.
John Wight has called the Times, the in-house organ of the neocon Henry Jackson
Society. Its days as Britain's respected newspaper of record have certainly long gone.
Just think back to that
Parliamentary debate on 14th March. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was attacked from his own side,
for his cautious approach towards the government's unproven claims about the Skripal case. To
add insult to injury a number of Labour MPs then signed Early Day Motion 1071 - which stated 'This
House unequivocally accepts the Russian state's culpability for the poisoning of Yulia and
Sergei Skripal'. Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith showed her support for Theresa
May by saying 'We very much accept what the Prime Minister said.'
Corbyn, coming under enormous Establishment pressure did buckle, saying the Russian
authorities 'needed to be held to account', even though later he still quite rightly insisted
that 'absolute evidence' was needed.
In bombing Syria on 14th April, Theresa May not only refused to recall Parliament, she also
ignored public opinion which showed only 20% in favour of air strikes. In a genuine democracy
that would have ruled out action. But May treated public opinion with utter contempt. That
wonderful passage from 'The Comments of Moung Ka' by the Edwardian comic writer Saki springs
readily to mind.
'The people of Britain are what is called a Democracy' said Moung Ka. 'A Democracy?'
questioned Moung Thwa. What is that?'
'A Democracy' broke in Moung Shooglay eagerly, 'is a community that governs itself
according to its own wishes and interests by electing accredited representatives who enact its
laws and supervise and control their administration. It's aim and object is government of the
community in the interests of the community'.
'Then', said Moung Thwa, turning to his neighbour, 'If the people of Britain are a
Democracy-'
'I never said they were a Democracy', interrupted Moung Ka placidly.
'Surely we both heard you!', exclaimed Moung Thwa.
'Not correctly, said Moung Ka; 'I said they are what is called a Democracy'.
4. The 'free press' doesn't act as you'd expect a 'free press' to act.
The striking thing about the Skripal case and Syria bombings from a journalist's point of
view has been the uniformity of the media coverage.
Right-wing papers like the Telegraph and liberal ones like The Guardian have taken exactly
the same stance ie anti-Russian and anti-Syrian government. Whether its because of DSMA-Notices
(see 6, below), or not, there's been no proper questioning of the UK government's claims about
Salisbury -- and not much on Syria either. Investigative journalism? What's that?
The mainstream media is actually less diverse in its opinions now (on the things that really
matter) than at the time of the Iraq war where publications like the New Statesman (now a
'centrist' Blairite organ), spoke out strongly against intervention. If you want a different
perspective on Skripals and Syria you have had to tune in to Russian media, such as Sputnik and
RT, and that of course is threatened by the NeoCon Thought Police, who want everyone to be
singing from the same pro-war hymn sheet.
5. The role of the security services in the promotion of 'official narratives' is very
important.
Every time a wheel has come off the Skripal narrative, we've been fed information to bolster
it from 'official sources'. After the head of Porton Down said that the laboratory there was
unable to confirm that the nerve agent allegedly used to poison the Skripals came from Russia,
the line was pushed that 'intelligence-led assessments' pointed to Russian guilt. Could we see
these 'assessments'? Of course not! We just have to believe that they're there. Then as the
'nerve handle placed on the door' theory began to gain a head of steam we were told that
'British Intelligence' had 'evidence' that Russia had been
testing the nerve agent on door handles prior to 3rd March. Could we see this 'evidence'?
No, of course not.
Alex Thomson of C4 News reported on 12th March that a 'D-Notice' had issued by the UK
authorities to stop the media from fully identifying Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler who lived
nearby.
Were other DSMA-Notices issued too
regarding the reporting of Salisbury? If it was so clear that Russia did it, why would they
bother?
6. The British public aren't mugs (or sheep).
Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased
coverage, the British haven't bought it. Literally or metaphorically. Inside the Tent
gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official
narratives, but its these
individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who the public are turning to
for their analysis. Compare the number of retweets the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig
Murray gets when he publishes on the Skripal case, with those who try and denigrate him. My own
Twitter following has increased by several thousands since early March. Citizen Halo got a big
boost in followers after she was smeared by The Times. After the lies told about Yugoslavia,
Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us. We're at an
'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics where more and more people have found the
courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no clothes!'. The elite have been lying to us and they
know that we know they've been lying. The question is: what are we going to do about it?
The Carla Ortiz and Jimmy Dore exchange is fascinating. Each in her/his own way is superb.
The Guardian has become boulevard press = tabloid. Nearly every day before and even after the
US election Mrs. Clinton gloated on the front page. Bernie Sanders was no where to be seen
nearly until the election. Now the Guardian is priming its readers for the stomach-churning
royal wedding coming up. No, no more Guardian for me. And they have the gall to ask for money
to turn out articles praising the White Helemts. No! Curtis , Apr 22, 2018 12:32:23 PM |
8
Anonymous 4
BBC took on Vannessa Beeley recently, too. Will NYT and WaPo be next? The anti-Russia agenda
continues along with the anti-truth-in-Syria agenda.
AriusAmerican 5
During the Bush II fiasco, there were anti-war protests. The protests disappeared after Obama
took office. And he was given a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace. But everyone went
along with Obama's wars. No protests. And that's how they like it. They want support and tend
to get it from the MSM and party lackeys. And if they don't get support, the one thing they
don't want are massive protests, calls to congress, etc. As long as there's little to no
resistance their war agenda continues.
PS
The HuffPoUK article tears into Beeley but at the bottom has a Russian submission to the
Security Council of a report she did of the White Helmets. That report negates the
article/story! HuffPoUK claims this is part two of a series and that part three will "look at
evidence presented against the White Helmets." That should be interesting.
Anonymous2 | Apr 22, 2018 1:50:23 PM | 12
Curtis
"The anti-Russia agenda continues along with the anti-truth-in-Syria agenda."
I dont get it why these journalists are against finding out what happend (since we dont know that yet)? Most of
these morons have no idea about the conflict at all, and all of a sudden start writing like they are veteran journalists and
have profound knowledge about Syria.
"... The media may be banned from reporting, but if my casual interactions with the UK populace are representative, the majority are highly sceptical of .gov - May / BJ 'Putin did it' accusations. ..."
"... One has to wonder why Russia is not calling Britain out on this obvious kidnapping. ..."
"... i had read craig murrays post earlier today...why are they covering up the fentanoyl angle? it's obvious! ..."
"... I think the policeman in this farce is key to everything. If the cause of the Skripal poisoning was fentenyal then why did the policeman become ill? ..."
"... Anyway, if it was a weapons grade chemical agent that the policeman was affected by, why was it he was able to leave hospital a few days later in full uniform looking a picture of health? ..."
"... Originally the story was he was somehow contaminated by the Skripals themselves, but as no one else in the contact chain was affected, and this notwithstanding the fact ambulance and medical had serious hand on contact was affected, it became clear that the policeman had to have another source of contamination. ..."
"... Thus; they invented the magic door knob story. Even this silly story is absurd. The police and the goons didn't investigate the door knob (actually, a door handle lever type) theory until 25 days later when rain and numerous people coming and going at the Skripals's would have worn off any contaminate from the door handle. ..."
"... By the way, they are now telling us the stuff on the door handle was a liquid. How do you get a liquid to stick of a shiny door handle? Apart from the silence of the press, the silence from the medical people is a factor also. They have not signed any official secrets act and they can't be issued with a D notice. ..."
"... the policemen appears like an inside prop for this false flag op... that is what it looks like to me.. forget about it, or him having any relevance or validity, if he is as i am suggesting.. ..."
"... It all seems amazing to me, what a strange world of collapsing empire we live in. Really, why don't the Russians demand at the UNSC the right to visit with Russian citizens? Call for a resolution demanding a visit and force them to veto. ..."
"... The US Drug Enforcement Agency claims that different kinds of Fentanyl, including something known as Carfentanil, can be absorbed through the skin or accidentally inhaled and cause death. ..."
"... Although the Skripal "op" was a success, the planned false flag didn't happen due to SAA's quick advance (with Russian help). Instead, a sloppy false flag was done at the very last minute in Douma just before the Jihadis gave up. This wouldn't save Ghouta so it was possibly motivated by the the desire to solidify anti-Russian sentiment created by the Skripal op. ..."
"... If we assume that the Skripals had been poisoned with fentanyl, we then have to explain how a doctor was able to give the Skripals first aid at the scene where they collapsed without being poisoned by fentanyl herself. ..."
"... @Jen16. Is it not possible the 'potency' of fentanyl is overstated in order to 'sell' the anti-dote? Much like the anthrax 'dote' after 911. I mean most dealers I have met aren't exactly stupid, that being said most aren't lab smart either, it would seem to me there would be a whole lot of dead dealers if 'traces' in the wind can kill. Then there is the anomaly of the Dr. and other's as you brought up in 16. Just a thought. FWIW. ..."
"... This charade has not gone well for May. It has raised serious doubts that the UK can ever be an ally of Trump. The Steele dirt dossier was an attack on Trump's family, presidential campaign and cripples his first term with purile Russia hatred. May and the espionage establishment are the enemy of the USA. After 250 years the British finally won the US war of independence and have enslaved the majority of its media outlets. ..."
"... The state exists to enforce the dominance of elites, all the rest is propaganda, misdirection, Obfuscation or terrorism up to and including total war. ..."
"... The young man Jamie Paine who first found the Skripals on the park bench got some liquid on his skin and apparently didn't suffer from it. ..."
"... The Devon Live report is still in its original form. It links to the first Wiltshire Police statement on the case and quotes from it. Curiously the link is dead. The first official police statement on the Skripal case is "currently unavailable". ..."
"... D-Notices are one of those evils that, once initiated, are never undone. It reminds me a bit of the fraudulent, gauzy "AUMF" used by the United States government as if it were a blank check written by God to wage imperialistic wars kinetic actions of aggression against anyone or anything it deems ripe for pillage or destruction-- at its sole pleasure and discretion, and for eternity. ..."
"... As it is, the D-Notices' ostensible "national security" rationale has proven to be mere camouflage for its true purpose: ensuring that malfeasant officials and operatives are "secure" in their depraved work, and are protected from all inquiries that might expose their heinous wrongdoing. Whoops! ..."
"... I do not know if fentanyl was found in OPCW sample, only British made BZ paralyzingly agent. The question is why? I think doctors in Salisbury who are trained with chemical nerve agents due to proximity to Porton Downs lab instantly knew there was no military nerve agent used there, would they also instantly know that it was Fentanyl since they faced epidemic of opioid overdoses. ..."
"... After recovery is was Skripal, trusted by her as her father, himself as part of psych op presented the narrative as Putin wanted to kill me and did not care that you happened to be with me at time of attack. I am so sorry, shit lies. She was brainwashed offered lucrative financial arrangement in the west decided to stay, thinking she could be killed upon returning to Russia. ..."
"... The fentanyl/BZ/Novichok angle seems eerily like the US/ZATO/MSM fallback position on the BUK missile scam for MH17. By insisting MH17 was brought down by SOME BUK, the story line never gets to the Ukie SU25s seen near MH17 on Russian commercial air-traffic tracking radar. ..."
"... The potential existence of Skripal's dead-man's-switch documentation may have extended well beyond the Steele scam, which would explain the urgency of the deed and why the Skripals are being held incommunicado. The search of the Skripal residence was to find that documentation, easy once the UK cordoned it off due to potential "chemical contamination". ..."
"... Why does this operation seem to have the malodorous stench of Berezovsky's spectre lingering in the background. While Berezovsky himself may be dead, it is safe to assume that remnants of his network are still around. If indeed the Skripals were poisoned, it could very well have been orchestrated by a rogue, non-state actor with embarrassing ties to MI6. In some ways it is reminiscent of the bungled Litvinenko operation (which the British gov't also covered up). ..."
"... Both Pablo Miller and Christopher Steele were known to be associated with Berezovsky. Steele, as his Mi6 handler, would probably have intimate knowledge of Berezovsky's connections and may well have used them as 'Russian sourced' material for his infamous Steele dossier. So Skripal, who consulted on the Steele dossier, is tied to both Miller and Steele who in turn are connected to remnants of Berezovsky's network. The 'suiciding' of Berezovsky (unless sanctioned by Mi6) suggests at least one group of players within this network who have their own agenda. ..."
"... It is possible that the Skripal case and the White Helmets Damascus chemical weapons likely false flag was an attempt of parts of the British (French) and US deep state to force Trump to remain in Syria. ..."
"... Skripal's "dead man switch" is pure fantasy. It assumes that a man who had betrayed his country and was merely an "asset" would be trusted with sensitive info. ..."
Thretha May proved to be a very dangerous woman -- a real political mafiosy.
There has been no recent reporting on the Skripal case in which a British-Russian double
agent and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury, England. There even seem to be attempts to
change the public record of the case.
The British government alleged that the Skripals were poisoned by Novichok, a deadly nerve
agent, and blamed Russia for it. There are stiill many open questions to ask but the British
media, otherwise not afraid of 'door stepping', are curiously uninterested. We already noted
in early April that the British press was throwing
Novi-Fog™ onto the public. It was repeating outrageous and illogical claims from
"security services" but did no genuine reporting on the Skripal case.
Some photo editor made sense of what the "security services" said and introduced an April
5 London Times piece with a picture of a likely source of the alleged Novichok
poison:
Now the former British ambassador Craig Murray quotes Clive Ponting, another former senior
civil servant, who
suspects that the British government issued a D-Notice. Such a notice forbids British
media to report on an issue. Murray also points to a tweet by Channel 4 correspondent Alex
Thomson from
March 12 in which Thomsen mentions a D-Notice specifically related to Mr. Skripal's MI6
handler:
The D-Notice attempt Thomsen mentioned was too late as some media had already reported the
name of the Skripal's MI6 handler. We spelled
it out on March 8.
One Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had
recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also
involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail.
Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released
by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and
Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about
Donald Trump.
We early on suspected
a relation between the "Dirty Dossier" and the Skripal affair:
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him.
Lots of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating
and running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some
very dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on
Russia looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
Whistleblower Clive Ponting,
quoted by Murray , now also suspects that the Skripal case was an 'inside' job that
followed from the 'dirty dossier' fakery:
If [Sergej Skripal] was also involved in the 'golden showers' dossier then elements in the
US would have a reason to act as well. The whole incident was an inside job not to kill
him, hence the use of BZ, but to give him a warning and a punishment. The whole thing is
being treated as though the authorities know exactly what went on but have to cover it
up.
...
I meant to add that the policeman who 'just happened' to be around was almost certainly the
special branch 'minder' who was keeping Yulia under surveillance. The media are not allowed
to mention the existence of a D notice.
There is not only a very curious silence in British media about the Skripal case, but
there seem to be active attempts to remove certain material about the case from the
public.
In 2017 investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhiev reported about
massive air transports of weapons to Syrian 'rebels' under diplomatic cover and got fired
over it. On April 26 she made another interesting find :
The Clinical Services Journal piece Gaytandzhiev had found is from March 5 2018,
the day after the Skripal incident in Salisbury. In its original version it read:
Salisbury District Hospital declared a "major incident" on Monday 5 March, after two
patients were exposed to an opioid .
...
It followed an incident hours earlier in which a man and a woman were exposed to the drug
Fentanyl in the city centre. The opioid is 10,000 times stronger than heroin.
One wonders why such a tiny magazine would bother to change an old story after some
journalist tweeted about it.
The CSJ was
not the only outlet which
mentioned Fentanyl. The local Salisbury Journal
reported it on March 5 and the piece is still up:
Police declared a major incident after a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s were found
unconscious on a bench in the shopping centre on Sunday.
Emergency services at the scene suspected the substance may have been a powerful drug
called fentanyl , but nothing has yet been confirmed.
They were taken to Salisbury District Hospital where they are in a critical condition in
intensive care.
In November 2017 the Salisbury Journal had reported about an
unrelated fenatanyl overdose case . In 2016 Salisbury had
a spike in Fentanyl OD cases. The local emergency services were surely aware of the
symptoms and effects of such a substance.
It is understood that police suspect fentanyl, a synthetic opiate many times stronger than
heroin, may have been involved . A man and a woman are in a critical condition and up to 10
other people are involved.
Officers and paramedics were called to The Maltings shopping centre in Salisbury after the
man and a woman fell ill. The woman, who was unconscious, was airlifted to Salisbury
district hospital at about 4.15pm, while the man was taken by ambulance.
...
It was recently reported that fentanyl has claimed the lives of at least 60 people in the
UK over the last eight months.
The Devon Live report is still in its original form. It links to the first
Wiltshire Police statement on the case and quotes from it. Curiously the link is dead. The
first official police
statement on the Skripal case is "currently unavailable".
The British press is now totally silent on the Skripal case. Craig Murray and another
former senior civil servant suspect that the government gave order to not report on the
issue. They also suspect, as we did early on, that the case is related to the fake "Dirty
Dossier" which the Clinton campaign ordered up to use it against Donald Trump.
It is not understandable why the British government would give a silencing order if, as
the government alleges, Russia caused the incident.
Why is no public investigation by the media allowed? Where is Yulia Skripal and what is
the health status of Sergej Skripal? Why have they been silenced?
---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the Skripal case:
The media may be banned from reporting, but if my casual interactions with the UK
populace are representative, the majority are highly sceptical of .gov - May / BJ 'Putin
did it' accusations.
Heard yesterday in the dispatch warehouse of a rural agri suply business I was
collecting suplies from.
One warehousman to another- "Terry, where the hell is Jeff this morning?" reply from
warehousman 2 "Off sick, poisoned by russians his Mrs says, proof is clasified, but he will
be in next week"
thanks b... the additional info is fascinating.. i had read craig murrays post earlier
today...why are they covering up the fentanoyl angle? it's obvious!
b,
on another and important note - something is wrong with your site, with regard to making
posts on the most recent open thread and even on the previous thread to this... some weird
html script is showing up on both, but i was able to post earlier today on the previous
thread...
I think the policeman in this farce is key to everything. If the cause of the Skripal
poisoning was fentenyal then why did the policeman become ill? Surely he wasn't taking this
drug?
Anyway, if it was a weapons grade chemical agent that the policeman was affected by,
why was it he was able to leave hospital a few days later in full uniform looking a picture
of health?
Originally the story was he was somehow contaminated by the Skripals themselves,
but as no one else in the contact chain was affected, and this notwithstanding the fact
ambulance and medical had serious hand on contact was affected, it became clear that the
policeman had to have another source of contamination.
Thus; they invented the magic door
knob story. Even this silly story is absurd. The police and the goons didn't investigate
the door knob (actually, a door handle lever type) theory until 25 days later when rain and
numerous people coming and going at the Skripals's would have worn off any contaminate from
the door handle.
By the way, they are now telling us the stuff on the door handle was a
liquid. How do you get a liquid to stick of a shiny door handle? Apart from the silence of
the press, the silence from the medical people is a factor also. They have not signed any
official secrets act and they can't be issued with a D notice.
@4 john.. the policemen appears like an inside prop for this false flag op... that is what
it looks like to me.. forget about it, or him having any relevance or validity, if he is as i am suggesting..
Regarding my post above, it has to be said that this assumed 'assassin' must be the most
incompetent one in the world. Surely the obvious way to get this fantasy weapons grade
chemical to Skripal would be via a letter posted through the door, say, in the early
evening. This way Skripal would have most likely died in his bed. By the way, it was a cold
day so how did the 'assassin not know that the Skripals wouldn't be wearing gloves? Even
the 'assassin' in this affair just doesn't add up. Questions, question, easily answered by
lies, lies, and more lies
It all seems amazing to me, what a strange world of collapsing empire we live in. Really, why don't the Russians demand at the UNSC the right to visit with Russian
citizens? Call for a resolution demanding a visit and force them to veto.
Thanks for doing your part to keep this false flag story alive.
It is interesting that Russia has not taken a stronger position in public about their
treatment.
The UK folks sure seem to be getting away with killing this story and expect them to be
successful if they can create another bigger wag the dog event.....not a good sign except
as a good sign that the end is closer.
DS Nick Bailey said, via an intermediary, that life will "probably never be the same." What
an odd thing for a police sergeant to say (perhaps his last words).
from the Telegraph:
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was discharged from hospital two weeks ago and hasn't been
heard from since, probably a result of the private session Bailey had with the Prime
Minister prior to his release. Bailey wasn't even allowed to make a statement upon his
discharge from hospital. In a statement read by Wiltshire Police Chief Constable Kier
Pritchard on March 22, DS Nick Bailey said he recognises his life will "probably never be
the same" and thanks the public for their "overwhelming" support. . .
here .
The US Drug Enforcement Agency claims that different kinds of Fentanyl, including something
known as Carfentanil, can be absorbed through the skin or accidentally inhaled and cause
death.
(The DEA also reminds its officers to protect their canine companions! My respect for
the DEA has increased 1000 fold.)
Do ex-spies ever get involved in the drug trade? Would accidental exposure to some kind
of Fentanyl explain what happened to the law enforcement officer who was also affected?
Perhaps seafood poisoning is the second most parsimonious explanation.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to initially suspect fentanyl given that fentanyl has killed
many people in UK and elsewhere. Food poisoning was also mooted early on due to Zizzi's
poor health record. But these possibilities smell like distraction from the BZ finding.
AFAIK The best way to "set the scene" for a public spectacle would be an attack with a
fast-acting agent at an opportune time and place. All other "theories" seem to me to be
mis-direction/distraction.
A police officer (DS Bailey) makes a logical choice to deliver the incapacitating agent
as he/she does not arouse suspicion when loitering and accosting the victims. If the
victims fight back, the policeman might be exposed to some of the substance.
Since the British haven't had Yulia appear before even the most loyal media poodles, I
suspect that the Skripals are dead.
I'm not convinced that the MI6 had anything to fear from the Steele dossier. To think
that any US investigator would be allowed to freely interview Skripal, Steele, or other
British "asset" seems a big stretch. And, if tying up loose ends of the Steele dossier was
the motive, it would've been much easier and more effective to have Skripal die quietly (in
bed of a heat attack) than publicly.
So I'm inclined to think that the "operation" was designed to discredit Russia prior to
a planned false flag in Ghouta which was meant to forestall SAA defeat of the takfiri
salafist Jihadis that controlled Ghouta. The confusion and apparent hurried nature of the
"op" (as noted by Jen early on - one of my favorite commentators here) fits with this
theory.
Although the Skripal "op" was a success, the planned false flag didn't happen due to
SAA's quick advance (with Russian help). Instead, a sloppy false flag was done at the very
last minute in Douma just before the Jihadis gave up. This wouldn't save Ghouta so it was
possibly motivated by the the desire to solidify anti-Russian sentiment created by the
Skripal op.
Anyway, that's my best guess as to what really happened. Another clusterfuck in a long
line of clusterfucks.
On April 26th she made an interesting discovery? Really? What about this Russian guy who
nobody bothers to read ? He is a pharmacologist and a knock-out coder and wrote about
Fentanyl on April the 21st.
If we assume that the Skripals had been poisoned with fentanyl, we then have to explain how
a doctor was able to give the Skripals first aid at the scene where they collapsed without
being poisoned by fentanyl herself.
There have been reports from the US about police
officers and emergency first response workers coming into contact with even very minute
amounts of fentanyl and falling unconscious and needing first aid themselves. In one
unusual incident, a police officer had been dealing with several cases, one of which
involved coming in contact with someone who overdosed on fentanyl, and after several hours
he brushed off what looked like dust particles from his uniform with his bare hand. He
collapsed almost straight away and needed hospitalisation. The dust particles turned out to
be fentanyl particles.
The doctor who gave first aid to the Skripals reported no ill effects; she turned
herself in to Salisbury District Hospital after hearing that the couple had been poisoned
by Novichok but she was found to be clear of any poisoning agent.
@Jen16. Is it not possible the 'potency' of fentanyl is overstated in order to 'sell' the
anti-dote? Much like the anthrax 'dote' after 911. I mean most dealers I have met aren't
exactly stupid, that being said most aren't lab smart either, it would seem to me there
would be a whole lot of dead dealers if 'traces' in the wind can kill. Then there is the
anomaly of the Dr. and other's as you brought up in 16. Just a thought. FWIW.
This charade has not gone well for May. It has raised serious doubts that the UK can ever
be an ally of Trump. The Steele dirt dossier was an attack on Trump's family, presidential
campaign and cripples his first term with purile Russia hatred. May and the espionage
establishment are the enemy of the USA. After 250 years the British finally won the US war
of independence and have enslaved the majority of its media outlets.
I would say narrative . Keep it simple. Repeat. Anything that throws doubt or poses
questions is submerged .
Curious that they went to the effort of shutting down the British press and the
scrubbing from search results on skripal and pablo miller. The results for "pablo miller"
in google news UK, US and others throw up almost identical results, even though I recall
seeing his name via google news mentioned early on...
I bet it has nothing to do with the Brussels 'Right to be forgotten!' Directive being
enforced...
But, when I look for him in Quant (under 'All') ...it throws up some interesting links,
but nothing under the 'news'!:
Remember I wrote earlier that I was sure that I had seen Miller's name mentioned on
google news earlier on? Well Quant threw this paywalled Daily Telegraph article from 7th
March (loose the spaces):
Poisoned Russian spy Sergei Skripal was close to consultant https://www. telegraph .co.uk/news/ 2018/03/07/
poisoned-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-close-consultant-linked/
By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter Hayley Dixon Patrick Sawer, Senior Reporter and Luke
Heighton
A security consultant who has worked for the company that compiled the controversial
dossier on Donald Trump was close to the Russian double agent poisoned last weekend, it has
been claimed.
The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify, lived close to Col
Skripal and is understood to have known him for some time.
Col Skripal, who is in intensive care and fighting for his life after an
assassination attempt on Sunday, was recruited by MI6 when he worked for the British
embassy in Estonia, according to the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency....
#####
It must have somehow slipped through, though probably because the you can't see 'pablo
miller's name in the visible section.
There are some other juicy links from Qwant, including one from the Guardian in 2000
which names Miller:
...which is full of unverifiable claims, including that Putin was almost recruited to
the UK! It always makes me laugh when they bring up the 'apartment bombings were an FSB
false flag to attack Chechnya', but those same people don't even mention Basayev's invasion
of Dagestan on the 7th August 1999 in support of his fellow jihadis who dreamed of a
Caucasian Islamic Emirate in Russia's south, i.e. what was attempted in Syria these last
few years. Keeping Russia weak, something entirely in keeping with US & UK
interests...
I'm pleased to see Antwar.com's stalwart Justin Raimondo's piece come up too.
Its unclear if that happened in all (100%) cases though. Its possible that only in
certain percentage of such cases the rescuers were affected, and in some cases they were
not.
Thus, a full statistic with such cases will have to be provided in order to be able to
make conclusions about this.
The young man Jamie Paine who first found the Skripals on the park bench got some liquid on
his skin and apparently didn't suffer from it. From a March 8 BBC video --
". . .man was frothing from the mouth, I got a little bit on my skin, it wasn't too much, I
just brushed it off." That has never been mentioned in any recent news accounts that I've
seen. We do have other articles mentioning Paine.
Wow! Thanks for picking up and expanding on Murray's blog, b! The planet's populated with
far too many evil English speaking people that must be culled from the herd--and soon!
I did an online search and I don't see frothing at the mouth or jerking motions as a
symptom of fentanyl poisoning. Opiate OD results in dizziness, confusion, sleepiness and
loss of consciousness, low blood pressure, slowed heartbeat and slow breathing, etc.
Also, there is a well-known antidote for fentanyl poisoning: naloxone (aka narcan),
which could've been applied quickly. And, while I'm not an expert, I am not aware of people
being in a coma for weeks due from a fentanyl OD. AFAIK, within days they are dead or
recovered.
Several people have asked why Russia has not raised the issue at the UNSC. I have heard
them raise the issue at the UNSC, (I listened on Ruptly), and so did Lavrov and so did the
Russian ambassador to Britain and so did Maria Zakarova.
The reason no one knows this is because the Mighty Wurlitzer of propaganda is controlled by
the West, not Russia. If they don't report it, people think it didn't happen. But it did.
The Devon Live report is still in its original form. It links to the first Wiltshire
Police statement on the case and quotes from it. Curiously the link is dead. The first
official police statement on the Skripal case is "currently unavailable".
FYI: A copy of the web page has been preserved at the Wayback Machine
@DB. Froth is a good visual indicator, kinda like having a roach clip on your keychain when
u cross a border.
It tells a story......... I doubt the Skirpals got a dose of Gillette.
I am not sure I have seen this angle in the article or comments, fentanyl use would present
the same triage symptoms as BZ. Seems chasing a fentanyl trail gets further from existing
evidence.
D-Notices are one of those evils that, once initiated, are never undone.
It reminds me a bit of the fraudulent, gauzy "AUMF" used by the United States government
as if it were a blank check written by God to wage imperialistic wars kinetic
actions of aggression against anyone or anything it deems ripe for pillage or destruction--
at its sole pleasure and discretion, and for eternity.
But I digress. Just as a matter of logic, it would seem as if the authorities who
created and approved the "D-Notice" procedure presumed that the government would never
become so tyrannical, despotic, and unethical that it would issue such mega-censorship
diktats in bad faith-- i.e., to provide cover for illicit and illegal government
conduct.
As it is, the D-Notices' ostensible "national security" rationale has proven to be mere
camouflage for its true purpose: ensuring that malfeasant officials and operatives are
"secure" in their depraved work, and are protected from all inquiries that might expose
their heinous wrongdoing. Whoops!
______________________________________
That said, I also wonder about Russia's relative official deference, at least publicly,
to the UK authorities' sequestering of the Skripals.
Given the absence of any domestic countervailing force to the British government's
high-handedness-- the UK media consent-manufactories are complicit enough as it is, even
without being gagged by D-Notices-- it would seem that the Russians are the only party able
and willing to "raise a stink" beyond polite formal communications.
Perhaps the comparison is inapt, but compare OPCW representative Aleksandr Shulgin's
recent presentation at the OPCW, and his comments about the faked chemical attack in Syria.
They are directly, forcefully, and appropriately accusatory, and signal that the Russian
government is weary of politely submitting to the UK's abusive and bellicose policies and
conduct.
But there seems to be no corresponding inclination to press the UK authorities over the
reprehensible and unconscionable kidnapping, or worse, of Russian citizens. 'Tis a
puzzlement.
I do not know if fentanyl was found in OPCW sample, only British made BZ paralyzingly
agent.
The question is why? I think doctors in Salisbury who are trained with chemical nerve
agents due to proximity to Porton Downs lab instantly knew there was no military nerve
agent used there, would they also instantly know that it was Fentanyl since they faced
epidemic of opioid overdoses.
As far as theory how this happened. I see that Skripal was in it, in fact he prepared
and tested appropriate dose for him as his daughter used as pawn to lend credibility and
provide required Putin evil killing innocent narrative which would be absent if he just
killed or hurt rogue agent.
Skipral himself calibrated that false flag dose of BZ or Fenantyl to make sure no
permanent damage would be done to his daughter and then administered it himself to her and
himself in controlled manner in public place so help would be coming immediately while in
his car they could have possibly lie there for hours before being discovered.
In fact place where he lived Salisbury near Porton Downs was perfect for this since
there was no way that doctors would misdiagnose them as military nerve agent victims which
wrong treatment would possibly caused irreversible damage to victims as doctors would be
more aggressive fearing immediate death of patients and also were immune to propaganda of
Novichok crap since they were experts in this medical field as real and present danger,
threat of exposure of Porton Downs employees was always there.
After recovery is was Skripal, trusted by her as her father, himself as part of psych op
presented the narrative as Putin wanted to kill me and did not care that you happened to be
with me at time of attack. I am so sorry, shit lies. She was brainwashed offered lucrative financial arrangement in the west decided to stay,
thinking she could be killed upon returning to Russia.
I do not think it would be far fetched to concoct such a thing or similar by MI6 as such
stunts were done before like fake deaths or staged attacks but in this case the point was
to fool British unwitting participants that nerve agent attack happenced as later they did
later in Douma in amateurish way but still it worked as pretext to pre planed aggression on
Syria as in case of Skripals pre planed diplomatic retaliation against Russia before any
investigation was really commenced , such thing only perpetrators of false flag themselves
would do.
If Skripal was not on it why keep them alive as prime witnesses of conspiracy since I
could imagine as a father myself Skripal being furious of MI6 amounted to attemp to kill
his daughter and blame Putin one he learned that there was no Novichok crap or any military
nerve agent used.
In fact Fenantyl is deadly if inappropriately handled what just few days after Skripal
affair husband and wife overdosed on Fentanty in California and putting in critical
condition their mother in law trying to revive them in the bedroom, children that never
enter the room by looked through the Door who called 911 were also mildly exposed while a
police officer who entered the room end up in hospital himself.
Whole house was immediately quarantined and covered by tent until, special unit arrived
days later and only then police investigator entered premises.
What interesting that no emergency or medical personnel in hospital was hurt since they
knew well how to deal with Fenantyl epidemic.
We must remember that despite crazy rhetoric we are dealing with risky but rational
people.
Unless I am mistaken D Notices are issued by the Minister of Defence who, in this instance
is the exceedingly high flying Tory Gavin Williamson. Williamson's previous job was as Tory
Whip -- making sure that there were no rebellions among the MPs at a time when the May
government hangs by a thread and is taking the most extraordinary measures to ensure that
it does not lose a Paliamentary vote.
Williamson's claim to fame, and May's affection, was that he ran the Whip's office as a
blackmail operation-spying on MPs and building dossiers featuring their errors, crimes and
indiscretions. He was very good at this, May, though very unpopular, is spared the fate
that Thatcher suffered-a vote of non confidence by the Tory MPs (the 1922 Committee)-
because Williamson, a thug, has a blackmailer's 'hold' over most of his colleagues.
Using a D Notice in this matter is very unusual- quite how national security would suffer
if the truth were to become widely known is difficult to imagine.
But thanks to the Israeli Embassy's million pound campaign against Corbyn, and a hundred
Fifth Columnists on the Labour benches who prefer May to their party leader, and
Williamson's mafia Parliament isn't working as it ought to.
The fentanyl/BZ/Novichok angle seems eerily like the US/ZATO/MSM fallback position on the
BUK missile scam for MH17. By insisting MH17 was brought down by SOME BUK, the story line
never gets to the Ukie SU25s seen near MH17 on Russian commercial air-traffic tracking
radar.
The pub seafood dish spiked with shellfish toxin is more likely, as it would need to be
ingested with a time-lag after ingestion so mere contact on the bench would not be an
issue. Mossad is too clever to leave anything easily traceable, and will keep injecting
alternative story lines into the British "intel" system and the MSM.
It is obvious this was NOT a UK or even US/CIA/5-Eyes operation. The UK politicians and
intel community had no idea, were caught totally flatfooted, so went to "trusted sources
(Mossad) to find out what to say.
The ONLY way for the UK to manage this massive back-stab by the Rothschild-backed
Israeli Zionists is to just shut down all access to any real info, so some BS stories will
be thrown around to confuse the public and defuse any attempts by real investigators to
piece together the real events.
The fact Skripal was probably involved in the Steele dossier scam may indicate the true
source of the anti-Trump agenda. Why else would Mossad be moved to desperately silence
Skripal, and his daughter on the potential scenario she knew and had come to pick up
Skripal's dead-man's-switch documentation and take it back to Russia for safe-keeping.
Imagine how upset Trumpty Dumbdy would be if he found out the Steele scam was ultimately
set in motion by Nuttyyahoo, or rogue elements in the Israeli gov't/Mossad.
"The first official police statement on the Skripal case is "currently unavailable"."
FYI:
the first report is still available on the Way Back machine Web Archive here, and there are
5 "captures" but only 3 of those show the actual report (through March 2018), starting in
April the text is not available any more....
link
">https://www.wiltshire.police.uk/article/1736/Major-incident-after-two-people-suspected-of-being-exposed-to-unknown-substance-in-Salisbury">link
@33DB. Yes and no depending on where your personal belief fence may be. For myself not
proves...... just seems conspicuously coincidental. Mind you, MSM never played it up to my
knowledge... in either case so..... either way froth no froth all we really know is two
family members from Russia spent time in a London hospital and the UK skreamed Russia did
it way before any reasonable person could be exected to believe it, given the track record,
after that who knows really.
I was curious about the relationship between Trump and the Rothschilds, and why they might
go to such lengths to get Mossad to go 100% rogue and pull off the Skripal attack.
A simple Dog Pile meta-search (Google will probably not give the same results for
obvious reasons) found a story in wide blog circulation from Oct 2016 which said Trump had
recently paid off his debt to the Rothschilds (probably through Goldman Sachs or the like).
The interesting part is the article claims Trump had ALL Rothschilds banned from his Mar a
Lago resort, the reputed quote from the Tweeter in Chief was "I grabbed Jacob (Rothschild)
by the scruff of the neck and kicked him out the back door of Palm Beach of Florida
society". Way to make enemies and influence friends there Donny-boy. The same article
quotes a Trump tweet, "They do not own the world, and they do not have carte blanch to do
whatever they want. If we do not challenge them there will be other issues. We will not be
bullied by them!" http://harddawn.com/trump-banned-rothschilds/
Except for the Trump tweets, the rest of the election-run-up article is full of Trumpty
Dumbdy hopium which has not panned out.
In an Infowars article: "The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a company under the wing
of The Economist, owned by the Rothschild banking family of England, has declared Donald
Trump a "global risk"
Can't see the Economist getting too far off-narrative with the Rothschild cabal, so this
rings true.
So while Infowars and Hard Dawn are not anyone's first choice as sources, they are
quoting Trump himself and a Rothschild media/propaganda organ.
Circle closed, Mossad did it. The UK MI6/5 and politicians didn't know what was
happening until after Israeli/Mossad "trusted sources" gave May and Johnson the script to
feed the MSM .
The potential existence of Skripal's dead-man's-switch documentation may have extended well
beyond the Steele scam, which would explain the urgency of the deed and why the Skripals
are being held incommunicado. The search of the Skripal residence was to find that
documentation, easy once the UK cordoned it off due to potential "chemical contamination".
Just to complicate the matter even more, I have found UK tabloid news reports online dated
7 - 8 March 2018 of a female office worker (who worked in the building next to the Zizzi's
Restaurant franchise in Salisbury) who was taken to Salisbury District Hospital by
paramedics. Links to the reports below:
The reports may not amount to much. The woman could have had a fainting reaction to
something not related to the Skripal poisoning incident.
As of today (29 April 2018) the pizza restaurant remains closed. The uniforms of the
staff who worked there on the Sunday when the Skripals ate at the restaurant were seized
and burned by the authorities.
Apparently traces of a nerve gas agent were said to have been found at the restaurant,
in particular on and around the table where the Skripals ate their lunch (and which has
since been incinerated).
Any word from the owner of the restaurant or workers laid off? Who pays to shut all them
and their families up?
@ A P with the Trump/Rothschild conflict exposure......thanks
If a sane world made the tools of finance public utilities then these social retards
would not have the means to plays these games on the backs of the rest of us.
It is obvious that Yulia Skripal's and her brother's ability to travel freely between
both sides and keep their childhood friends in the secret service community would have cost
their father dearly. He is described as a family man, and could easily be blackmailed with his family.
Fentanyl OD would have very similar symptoms to BZ exposure. There is no doubt in my mind
that the Skripals were exposed to BZ (as confirmed by Swiss lab) and Fentanyl was the
obvious suspect for the medical staff who would not have had full toxicology report by the
time initial report was made.
Seems like UK just started a propaganda campaing against Corbyn sigh, UK Media Claims 'Russian Bots' Tried to Influence Election to Support Corbyn
https://sptnkne.ws/hwDC
51 OPCW says the BZ was in the control samples not the original. All you need to cheat would be one person to switch Novichok and original samples in the
Dutch lab where the samples were split.
A control sample that gives the same exact symptoms as the victims displayed. How
convenient! Of all the millions of organic chemicals they could have chosen for a control
sample........ I'll leave you with that thought.
I'm confused about dropping the Novichok hypothesis.
The explanation of BZ poisoning has been dropped, fine. But what about the presence of
A234? It's not because the initial report mentioned Fentanyl poisoning that this is
correct. Fentanyl is a problem the doctors are familiar with as a 'live' social problem and
it's easy to explain a new case with Fentanyl while in fact it's something else. So it is
possible that afterwards the doctors changed their minds and saw no reason not to comply
with pressure to correct the statement. I don't know if the symptoms the doctors were
presented with were clear enough to exclude confusion.
Gareth Porter has an article about a batch of A234 which has been around since the
nineties, probably in hands of Russian mafia, and which by now has been deteriorated and
would have much less predictable effects when used.
There is a mention of the purity of the traces of A234. There are two interpretations of
that: one is that it is fresh and contains little contaminations. Another is that it has in
fact deteriorated very much but from the proportions of the components it is clear that it
was once a pure product.
I would not exclude the possibility that a very old batch of A234 was used and that the
British were convinced it was from russian origin and intended to take full advantage of
this. It could be that they knew it had russian origin because they had been involved in
acquiring the sample , or it was just a good guess, but the opportunistic use of the
pretext is the same.
Here is some information from Pablo Miller: "Little was known about Miller's life outside
his public clashes with the FSB. He served in the British Army as a member of the Royal
Tank Regiment and the Royal Green Jackets before he joined the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office in 1990. A veterans site for the Royal Tank Regiment shows a 1984 photograph of a
Lt. Pablo Miller patrolling the Green Line in Cyprus, where Miller's LinkedIn profile
indicates he served.
Diplomatic lists show Miller's first foreign posts after joining the FCO were in
Nigeria, first in Abuja and later Lagos beginning in 1992 before he took a job as first
secretary at the British embassy in Estonia in September 1997. He also served as a
counsellor at the British embassy in Warsaw, Poland from 2010 through 2013." (....) In
2000, the FSB identified Miller as the "head of British intelligence in Tallinn," Estonia
and accused him of recruiting an FSB officer later identified as Valery Ojamae." (Source:
Daily Beast)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pablo-miller-the-mystery-man-who-recruited-putins-poisoned-spy?source=facebook&via=mobile
Why does this operation seem to have the malodorous stench of Berezovsky's spectre
lingering in the background. While Berezovsky himself may be dead, it is safe to assume
that remnants of his network are still around. If indeed the Skripals were poisoned, it
could very well have been orchestrated by a rogue, non-state actor with embarrassing ties
to MI6. In some ways it is reminiscent of the bungled Litvinenko operation (which the
British gov't also covered up).
Both Pablo Miller and Christopher Steele were known to be associated with Berezovsky.
Steele, as his Mi6 handler, would probably have intimate knowledge of Berezovsky's
connections and may well have used them as 'Russian sourced' material for his infamous
Steele dossier. So Skripal, who consulted on the Steele dossier, is tied to both Miller and
Steele who in turn are connected to remnants of Berezovsky's network. The 'suiciding' of
Berezovsky (unless sanctioned by Mi6) suggests at least one group of players within this
network who have their own agenda.
Perhaps you would be considerate enough not to degrade the quality of MOA by posting
'information' sourced from obvious nutjobs such as your sourcing for ' Trump and the
Rothschilds'. To quote a blog, which includes such gems as "FACT CHECK! 69 Million Illegal
Alien Extraterrestrials Voted for Hillary: Mostly True", seems to indicate you are probably
more suited to be commenting over there rather than on MOA.
That idea is probably more plausible than the food poisoning idea: the poison need not
actually have been a nerve gas agent as long as it mimics the symptoms of shellfish
poisoning. The only issue is, who would have put the poison into the food? If the staff had
done it, someone would have noticed because there were no walls or other barriers between
the kitchen and the dining area. One would also expect other diners to have had food
poisoning although it's possible the Skripals were the only diners that day to have eaten
seafood risotto. The second possibility is that someone was with the Skripals while they
were having lunch and managed to pop something into their lunch while they were not
looking.
Of course we would discount other alternatives: that the Skripals were poisoned at The
Mill pub or on the park bench.
V @ 45: Why would we be surprised if Treason'n'Mayhem doesn't flinch if she's been busted
for lying? She's had plenty of practice, another episode of lying is just part of the
regular routine!
Fwiw. DS Nick Bailey. I tend to believe that he was 'sickened,' was not a made-up
character / a real person playing a hoaxy part / and so on.
1 He existed at the Wiltshire Police, enough on the net about him. At one point (2017)
he was stationed very close to the 'park bench' spot. The photo seen everywhere is of an
award ceremony for him for work leading to the arrest of a serial rapist. (2016) Imho his
wife and children exist (no post about that.)
2 How, from where, etc. he arrived at the Skripal collapse park-bench on 4 March (if he
did) is not mentioned in any news article. Expressions used: rushed / speeded / to help --
after coming to the aid of -- first cop on the scene -- after responding to the attack --
as the first response to the attack -- No other info. offered.
Was he on duty? Where was he? How did he arrive? What did he do? How did he get to the
hospital? One article mentions TWO policemen as first responders, as one would expect. Who
was the other one (if 1 = N. B.)? Almost no info about N.B. was given out. At some later
point some articles suggested that he was not poisoned at the scene, or thru contact with
the Skripals, but because he was the first plod to enter the Skripal house. (Imho this last
story was pure speculation / made up, a sort of offshoot of the poisoned knob narrative.
Whatever, if any, poisoning took place, was not at the house, but at the very earliest at
the Zizzi restaurant.)
3 Couldn't find any 'witness' descriptions (e.g. doc who first dealt with Yulia) of the
arrival of the police. Exceedingly strange. Perhaps some exist but I missed them..? One
would expect: When DS Bailey and Plodue rushing to the scene of the deathly murderous
attack realised some nerve agent was suspected a high alert priority emergency order was
immediately called out for a helicopter .. Nothing like that. It is as if all the
'bystander witnesses' simply vanished at some point. I also looked for cell photos of the
park-bench scene and only found ONE possible. Scroll down to pic of Sergei:
4 I found NO news about N.B. beyond the read-out declaration by police, and the
annoucement that he left hosp. on 22 March. The few words available (visit of top plod to
N. B. in hosp and declaration) "very anxious" - "completely surreal" - "life never the same
again" - "find a new normal" seem to fit with..heh.. a lot of stuff incl. BZ, Fentanyl, and
LSD, but not a deadly nerve agent. Heh, not worth much, just a few words. (see Don Bacon as
well.)
All this, imho, signals a clumsy cover-up, gag orders, etc. Which points to unexpected
results, plots gone wrong, clumsy exploitation of events, etc. No way a planned false flag
type conspiracy. (I'm not keen on the links between Skripal and the Steele
dossier.)
@31. ı think the issue we are wondering most about is the abduction of Yulia Skripal.
We know they have addressed the poisoning issue at the UNSC, but wonder about Russia
pressing for the illegal prevention of a Russian citizen accessing her government. There is
zero evidence provided by the British government which suggests Yulia does not want
contact, except the British governments' assertion to that effect. The word of the
abductors is worthless.
your dealing with ............criminals........... who are in charge of top level large
organizations/departments called your government. criminals. the same for terrorists, which
pre-9/11 was just criminals. your dealing with criminals/terrorist who have a hand in their
media to be able to make you think in a hundred directions. which is not necessary.
First. How could UK and US not know about some mossad operation and was caught flat footed?
There responses were quick enough to insinuate that russia did it again in syria not long
after.
Second. How come skripal and his daughter haven't just come out for answers unless they
were in on it? (how they were in, is not really important now, it is obvious, unless i hear
a story about a russian immigrant jumping out of a window, I find her flying to UK was her
one way trip now unless she proves otherwise)
Last. the fact the sample did contain a bit of everything suggests, their intention was to
"hide". remember i said the cctv cameras would have been reviewed by now easily.
the hit on n.korea's brother? there was not really an intention to hide by their
governance.
russia is doing good to ignore such banter, because it is really below the level of even
petty criminals who do things out of necessity as compared to idiots who have power but
still fk it all up. not that putin is not capable of this and probably has so before, but
these actions or inactions speak about someone who is experienced.
On a side note. I viewed US campaign commercials and I saw the words two faced being used
instead of highlighting what they had done or will do....... it has been a nice ride. i
missed the old us but i won't regret her now. =(
"UPDATE: Stupidly I had forgotten this vital confirmation from Channel 4 News (serial
rebel Alex Thomson) of the D Notice in place on mention of Pablo Miller.
(Alex Thomson tweeted on March 12 that a D notice, to protect Skripal's handler,living
nearby, had been imposed in the previous week) https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
"Back then I did not realise what I now know, that the person being protected was Pablo
Miller, colleague in both MI6 then Orbis Intelligence of Christopher Steele, author of the
fabrications of the Trump/Russia golden shower dossier. That the government's very first
act on the poisoning was to ban all media mention of Pablo Miller makes it extremely
probable that this whole incident is related to the Trump dossier and that Skripal had
worked on it, as I immediately suspected. The most probable cause is that Skripal –
who you should remember had traded the names of Russian agents to Britain for cash –
had worked on the dossier with Miller but was threatening to expose its lies for cash."
A super strong opioid and therefore OD will involve loss, of consciousness, slowed
breathing, pin point pupils and death.
Fentanyl is usually administered via a transdermal patch i.e. across the skin but over an
extended time period, although the junkies I worked with in Sydney had worked out how to
extract the good stuff from the patch in an injectable form. Bang into your arm (or neck if
you're hardcore).
Overdose is EASILY reversed by Narcan /naloxone injected IM. Kicks every opioid molecule
off associated receptors.
I believe an aerosol form was used by Russian special forces in Moscow theatre siege. It
incapacitated terrorists and hostages and unfortunately coused death by positional
asphyxiation to a hundred or so hostages.
I think the idea about Yulia visiting to take Sergei's dead-man-switch back to Russia is
interesting. Reminded me of the report
that they both had turned off their cell phones for four hours between the visit to the
cemetery in the morning and showing up in city center in the early afternoon. Maybe they
went for the documents Sergei had stored in a secret location and had them with them when
they were taken out in the park.
61) actually they do. This here is the OPCW publication on "on-site and off-site
analysis"
They use "scheduled chemicals" for spiking controls which means chemicals that are on
their chemical weapons list.
Spiked samples at OPCW lab would show those control chemicals in a virgin state, and
that's exactly what happened. Problem is, the evidence was exactly the opposite of what
OPCW claimed. Swiss report showed Novichok was in a virgin state and pure form
(definitely lethal to victims, if it was in their blood), that's an evidence IT WAS THE
SPIKE, not BZ.
According to the OPCW lab report the Russians got hold of, it sounded as though remnant
traces of BZ where found plus a A-234 spike (in virgin state). But then medical journal has
Fentanyl.
The Skripals knocked out with Fentanyl, OPOCW blood samples first spiked by MI6 with
A-234 and then spiked by OPCW with a control substance?
Or Skripals knocked out with fast acting Fentanyl, then dosed with BZ, perhaps a day or two
later?
@50 "Family man" Scripal...hmmm...they said that his wife and son are dead (for how
long?)...Then they said that his daughter has been paid 200.000 in to her account as a
money he received from the house sold after his divorce (with second wife that noone even
mentioned or ...his dead wife? I assume one can not divorce his dead wife...) just before
poisoning...
It is possible that the Skripal case and the White Helmets Damascus chemical weapons
likely false flag was an attempt of parts of the British (French) and US deep state to
force Trump to remain in Syria.
It looks like there has been a rift between military and intelligence services.
I do not know about his daughter but it seems to me that he is definitely dead. Or they may
made a deal to play this game for authorities and poisoning never actually happened. Blood
samples were manipulated (and badly)... We may know more about this case after 50 years or
so...Witnesses wouldn't talk scared for their lives. Time and events are running fast and
public easily forgets what happened last week when new "event" plays next week. Hard to
follow all these crooked actors on a political scene...But more and more people are dead
and wars and "revolutions" are everywhere...I am afraid "chicken will come home" soon...
Such power as the UK has retained post-empire has rested on the special relationship with
the U.S. The core of that special relationship has been cooperation between the intel
agencies of the two countries. Before the election, the U.S. intel agencies very much
opposed Trump, and since then they have very much been a part of the so-called resistance
to him. It figures that the UK would want to assist them.
@ 79 What son? As I understand his son is dead and two of them visited cemetery where his
son and wife are...and then again why this money is in his daughter's account?
@ pantaraxia #60: Thanks for pointing that out. Seems the troll farms were/are working
overtime, as I have now found "articles" which use nearly EXACTLY the same two quotes (with
suitable substitutions), but attributed to Putin/Russia. Some days you get the bear, some
days the bear gets you...
The Economist part? The fact that corporatist rag lies as much as any MSM... but the
Economist also definitely toes the Rothschild propaganda line, so that article shows there
is no love lost between them and Trump.
Despite this, my premise stands, if Skripal had damning evidence that the Steele scam
and the larger "Russian collusion scam" was more than just theory, and linked the
Dems/lawyers/spooks back to the Rothschilds, then we have the Zionist connection. Mossad
does the Zionists' dirty work.
So what power-base comes out ahead on this episode? Not the UK for sure... they have
been shown to be incompetent and not in control of what happens on their turf. The Dems
don't gain, as this threw at least temporary focus back onto the
nearly-forgotten-by-the-MSM Steele scam. Trump surely doesn't gain much, not enough to have
the CIA do the deed. Even assuming the CIA would do as Trump asks. Russia/Putin had exactly
zero to gain from this. It may even be a significant loss, because if Yulia was bringing
back her father's dead-man-switch documents to Russia for safekeeping, there's a chance the
FSB might have been able to get them.
Who's left? Given that the Rothchilds have declared Trump "a danger" via the Economist
and elsewhere, one could easily imagine them trying to install, via Trump's impeachment, an
even more rabid Zionist puppet in the form of Pence.
So confusion and disarray all 'round.
"By deception shalt you do war." The Mossad motto.
The effects of BZ are felt about 1/2 hour after exposure and can last for weeks.
Fentanyl could have immediate effect but those effects last only days.
Skripal's "dead man switch" is pure fantasy. It assumes that a man who had betrayed his country and was merely an "asset" would be
trusted with sensitive info.
Whatever help Skripal may have provided to Steele is likely to have been tangential.
Steele almost certainly had other sources that he could call on. But Skripal might make for a good fall guy.
Those who decry Russia's seeming inaction fail to consider that that keeping the Skripal's
incommunicado is a provocation that is meant to illicit threats from Russia that could
further the anti-Russian agenda. By keeping a cool head the Russians have avoided this trap.
No evidence was provided to support this. How many substances are on the control list?
How many times has BZ been used as a control? Show us evidence of labs that have previously
found BZ in samples provided by OPCW. Let independent journalists interview the
technicians.
The lab found 'Novocho' in pure and I pure state. If we believe OPCW assertion that they
have chain of custody (no reason not to at this point) then it's logical to conclude that
the 'Novochok' Is likely to have been administered to Skripal shortly before the sample was
taken.
This leads to the interesting question whether samples were taken from BOTH Skripal's or
only Mr. Skripal. Prehaps Yulia was not given the 'Novochok' and that's why she "recovered"
much sooner?
I've gotten somewhat inured or indifferent to the endless, churning speculation about
what happened to the Skripals, most of which relies upon manifestly unverified and
untrustworthy reports from various complicit individuals and organizations with strong
motivations to deceive the public. But your scenario is indeed novel and quite plausible,
so thanks.
I was reminded of a UK journalist infogandist bumptiously questioning some
Russian embassy official recently; this would-be reporter parried the Russian's complaint
about Yulia's sequestration by sharply positing that Yulia may be averse to meeting with
Russian embassy staff because she "is afraid for her life".
At the time, it was obvious enough that this reporter was advancing the narrative that
demonizes the sinister Russians in every possible manner. But this tendentious query is
certainly consistent with your idea that Yulia is being "played" by both her UK captors and
a complicit father.
_____________________________
Regarding another line of speculation: I have no technical qualifications to assess the
merits of the speculation about the toxic substances. But on general principles of rational
skepticism, I strongly doubt the ambiguous suggestion that an old and/or significantly
deteriorated quantity of A-234 or other "nerve agent", possibly possessed by expatriate
Russian criminals and ne'er-do-wells, was used to poison the Skripals.
I concede that "anything" is possible . But it simply strikes me as implausibly
far-fetched-- and, even worse, it obliquely reinforces the official Big Lie. That is,
postulating the use of some deteriorated chemical weapon: 1) supports the preposterous
original claim that a powerful nerve agent was indeed deployed, and; 2) supports the
speculation that the UK government itself is really a victim, or target, of the "real"
perpetrators.
The UK's official response is not that of an innocent party-- a target or victim--
determined to forthrightly and transparently determine the truth of the matter. Introducing
the red herring of some malicious independent actor(s) using some mysterious supply of an
unpredictable chemical weapon seems inherently disinformational, and further muddies the
water.
Jackrabbit, the policeman recovered quickly, perhaps a dose of Fentanyl only, whereas
Skripals hit with Fetanyl, then later hit with BZ? Or all three hit with Fetanyl only
Skripals recovering about the same time as policeman but held incommunicado.
From the medical journal it seems Fetanyl was the diagnosis (for all three?) in the first
24 hrs. BZ and A-234 only show up in the OPCW report?
Fetanyl in an aerosol, Skripals hit with it at the park bench, whatever it was delivered
in left at the scene? Bailey first copper on the scene picks it up and gives himself a mild
dose?
IMHO, OPCW should release the primary data rather than edited conclusions.
Scientifically, edited conclusions have no value without raw data being available and open
to alternative analysis. For examples, the spectrum generated by a substance added to a
blood sample after it is collected should be different from a substance that the subject
had it his/her organism for several weeks before blood sample was collected. "Detecting" a
substance covers a variety of possibilities. The phenomenon of bending interpretations
according to a pet theory is actually frequent in science setting, but if findings are
important, raw data is re-analyzed, additional experiments may be performed (e.g. is this
stuff REALLY that toxic? can it have a delayed onset of symptoms? what is the chance of
synchronized delayed onset?) Pet theories may misleadingly fit prior experience of the
researchers, help getting funding, help financial stakes of a company etc., and in this
case, promote a certain type of international crisis. Whatever the mischief potential there
may be, releasing primary data became a standard for publications in biomedical research,
and it should apply in this case too.
Jackrabbit
or as you say a mix of Fetanyl and BZ, hospital blood tests picking up the Fetanyl but not
checking for BZ? The policeman receiving a much lighter dose due to handling whatever was
used to administer the stuff.
In 2016 Salisbury had a spike in Fentanyl OD cases. The local emergency services were
surely aware of the symptoms and effects of such a substance.
You might want to reconsider this argument. Your link from the local Newburyport Alefish
wrap refers to Salisbury, Massachusetts, not England. By the way, we locals consider
Fentanyl a perfectly acceptable response to Austerity.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which
would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing
the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.
Yaya April 22, 2018 at 9:22 am Good
on Anon for not letting Israel off the hook!
I'm also pleased to see Margolis emphasize the role of Britain, and its talent for brutal
name-calling. Theresa May is especially good at vitriolic descriptions of entitities she wants
the rest of us to hate and revile. This was so evident in the speech her delegate gave to the
OCPW (why that was even allowed is beyond me, since the OCPW is supposed to be impartial) that
it was almost laughable. Well, I actually did laugh at one point. https://www.yayacanada.ca/home/theresa-may-star-of-stage-screen-and-parliament
And kudos big-time to Consortium News for carrying on so beautifully the legacy of your lost
leader. I particularly appreciated the sane and cogent articles concerning the so-called
Russian Hack Myth, and keep them with others in sidebar of my blog.
I'm as irritated as anybody by Brit-chauvinism, but their eminent contribution to the
technical and philosophical foundations of modern society – from Newton and Bacon
through Locke, Smith, and Burke to Maxwell, Whitehead, and Turing – is undeniable.
I just posted a link to a Vesti clip at the end of the previous thread, because it seems so
relevant to b's message about the western crackdown on free speech in this information war.
This open thread is coming so close on the heels of that wonderful article, that I want to
double-post here as well as there.
Margarita Simonyan of RT says how she's trying to talk, not to power but to common people,
because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really do shape public
opinion - not governments. She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert
and telling the truth about the White Helmets.
She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to write so someone can
read:
See BBC
interview . One really good sarcasm from Lavrov. Sergey Lavrov comperating UK beahviour with
the famous Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland episode in order to describe the new western
'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a
masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse.
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said "highly likely" as a new invention of the British diplomacy to
describe why they punish people – because these people are highly likely guilty, like in
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll - when he described a trial. And when they discovered that
the jury could be engaged, then the King said "Let's ask the jury" and the Queen shouted "No
jury! Sentence first – verdict afterwards." That's the logic of "highly likely".
Question: Have you got one shred, shred of evidence to suggest British intelligence tried to
kill Sergei Skripal?
Sergey Lavrov: There is an old Roman criteria "who is to benefit". The UK is grossly
benefiting from the provocations both in Syria and in the United Kingdom itself.
Sergey Lavrov: That's a problem. First, the A-234 agent in highly pure form in high concentration is already raising
suspicions.
Question: It came from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, you invented that.
Sergey Lavrov: Stephen, you are not factual. You may be hard talking, but you are not listening. This chemical substance
indeed was invented in the Soviet Union, then one the inventors fled to the United States and made the formula public. And if you
want to check before raising the issue, please do so, the United States patented this formula; and it was formally taken by United
States special services or the army, I don't remember. But A-234 is a very light, I mean, it seriously damages a person, kills him
of her, but it evaporates very fast; and the sample taken two weeks after the event cannot, according to our scientists, contain
very high concentration.
Notable quotes:
"... 'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first -- verdict afterwards.' ..."
"... Elena Skripal has granted a power of attorney to Viktoria Skripal allowing her to represent Elena's interests in Russia and the UK (shown in the video at 4:43). That means that the UK government is not allowing a legal representative of Sergei's mother to visit him. ..."
The Investigative Committee of Russia has published a video covering the information it has
collected so far while investigating the Skripal case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6Z_yGEFSY
(in Russian). Three interesting tidbits stand out:
1:40–2:10 Yulia's movements have been traced from the moment she got into a
Moscow taxi to the moment she boarded the plane to London. Taxi driver's identity has been
established, as well as the identities of all passengers who traveled on the same flight as
Yulia; none of them have experienced any health issues. The video shows CCTV footage of Yulia
going through the airport.
4:20–5:10 The British claimed that Skripals had no relatives to represent their
interests. This claim allowed the authorities to obtain the court permission to take blood
samples from unconscious Skripals. However, it was found that Skripals had two relatives living
in Yaroslavl oblast: 89-year old mother of Sergei Skripal, Elena Skripal, and his niece,
Viktoria Skripal. We already know that. Here's what's new: on April 5, Elena Skripal has
granted a power of attorney to Viktoria Skripal allowing her to represent Elena's interests in
Russia and the UK (shown in the video at 4:43). That means that the UK government is not
allowing a legal representative of Sergei's mother to visit him.
7:29–8:21 According to Viktor Holstov, the head of the Center for Analytical
Research on Conventions for the Prohibition of Chemical and Biological Weapons at the Russian
Ministry of Industry and Trade, a 2009 US patent evaluating possible antidotes to
organophosphorous agents states that the antidotes to nerve agents such as sarin and VX are
ineffective against Novichok-class agents. To arrive at such a conclusion, obviously,
Novichok-class agents had to be synthesized in the U.S.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly
unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully,
the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your
facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as
much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were
parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just
a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training
in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into
the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army
and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told
the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number)
into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative
forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform
and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise
it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through
the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing
god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive
amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases,
it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though
a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and
founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over
$40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable
to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us
to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all
you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue
signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried
out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you
equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the
Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well
documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities
overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one
of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators
after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support
for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into
a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS
terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than
to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern
Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the
Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western
intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people...
blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the
ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the
full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest
incidence of liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce
Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war
for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.
So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw
of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is
being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.
But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction
on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
"... I think the most amazing thing to come from this is that nobody believes politicians or the papers say, listen to any phone in radio show or read the comments below articles, nobody believes the government or msm. I wouldn't go to war for these fuckers. ..."
"... The media proclaimed the overthrow of the Mosadegh government in Iran as 'popular', the overthrow of Allende in Chile as legitimate, the Gulf of Tonkin affair as real, the WMDs of Iraq as existing, the evil of Qaddafi as intolerable, etc. ..."
"... Money, Oil, Carving Land Territory. ..."
"... Bombing a sovereign country without UN mandate is a war crime. It applies to UK and USA as well. But Brexit obsessed Brits think UK is above the International law. ..."
"... Has anyone asked.. why would Russia allow a chemical weapons attack in Syria only a few weeks after apparently launching a chemical weapons attack in Britain?.. something is not right here. ..."
"... The Putin regime may be nasty..but are they really that thick?? Remember remember 45 minutes to launch...(?) Tony Bliar is haunting me..and I suspect..the entire nation ..."
"... In the 1980s we sided with the jihadists and bin laden in Afghanistan. Which then was repaid with 9/11. Now we are siding with the jihadists in Syria. The blowback will be bigger than 9/11. ..."
"... I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be observed ..."
Not a supporter of any of the criminal operations that masquerade as governments worldwide, but it's way past the time when
I can believe a word the Western powers utter in their quest to spread their vile economic doctrine.
For me the biggest question now is how best to avoid financing the evil they perpetrate
So the Russian military claimed a month ago that Syrian rebels were planning a chlorine chemical weapon attack somewhere in Syria,
three weeks later a chemical weapon chlorine attack happens in Douma... but the UK government along with all the UK mainstream
media do not question perhaps it's the Jihadi/rebels who staged this attack, they ALL automatically blame Assad? Stinks to high
heaven.
I think the most amazing thing to come from this is that nobody believes politicians or the papers say, listen to any phone
in radio show or read the comments below articles, nobody believes the government or msm. I wouldn't go to war for these
fuckers.
The media proclaimed the overthrow of the Mosadegh government in Iran as 'popular', the overthrow of Allende in Chile as
legitimate, the Gulf of Tonkin affair as real, the WMDs of Iraq as existing, the evil of Qaddafi as intolerable, etc.
So, why is the media surprised when people lack trust in them about Syria?
Everywhere on the web the vast majority are vehemently opposed to military involvement .
Yet we have a PM and at least 300 MPs
champing at the bit to get involved in military conflict that could obliterate these islands in a few minutes.
We are not under threat there might not have been a chemical attack and if there was we have no idea who the perpetrators were
but it almost certainly was not Assad he had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Trump announced he wanted the US out of Syria a couple of weeks ago not good news for the military industrial complex.
There is significant evidence that through the internet and social media the population are no longer fooled by the false flag
operations of the deep state.
We in the U.K. have a significant problem who is a threat to all of us and that is the PM she was exposed during the election
and over Brexit this must be the end it is totally unacceptable that we could get involved in an attack on another sovereign state
who are no threat to us on the say so of a small number of MPs in a minority Government.
The duty of the Government is to protect its citizens not put their lives at risk to engratatiate themselves to a Foreign Power
with a deranged egomaniac as it's President
Assad's not your puppy. Mohammed Bin Salman is. BAE re-arms his jets between crop-burning sorties in Yemen. When you've stopped
the Saudi starvation and brutalization of Yemen -which you can because your gavernment facilitates it - come back and we'll talk
about Syria. Until then we'll assume that your lachrimose offerings on gassed babies is propaganda. And that's because it is.
Tehran has churches and synagogues all over the city. Riyadh does not. Religious tolerance is better than religious intolerance,
IMO.
I don't have a problem with anyone talking to anyone about anything, as long as Britain hasn't declared war on the country they
are talking to.
If its down to believing Assad and common sense over Trust me Theresa and her unwillingness to refer the matter to Parliament
and democracy ... then its Assad and common sense every time ... he may be a dictator but he's no idiot
What makes chemical weapons so much worse than any others? If we go into military action over this we will kill people but we
won't use chemical weapons. Will that be alright then?
Some think this is about oil and a pipeline going through the Middle East states and if it goes through the heart of Syria then
Russia and Syria of control of the oil flow going into Europe.
Any involvement Iran has in the region good or bad is at least understandable , it's their neighborhood and they were invited
. It is more difficult to understand the presence or involvement of Britain or America or France or that other country we are
not allowed to talk about.
What many people do not fully realize is that no leader, no matter how harsh or strong would have been able to survive the destruction
that has overtaken Syria if he was considered responsible for it. His own people and armed forces would have thrown him out if
he did not have their support.
" And yet what was originally billed as a discrete military action to prevent an impending civilian slaughter in Benghazi escalated
into a bombardment that led to regime change and mayhem. '
No , Johnathan , it was planned .. see the PNAC etc ...
Why the obsession with Corbyn? He's the leader of the opposition. He's not the one clamorouring to send Britain to war on an extremely
dodgy pretext.
But if you're going with that line of argument, why not send all the hacks cheerleading for war to do some 'behind the front
lines' reportage with the Army of Islam? Always good to see things from different perspectives, though they might not survive
to tell the tale.
Bombing a sovereign country without UN mandate is a war crime. It applies to UK and USA as well. But Brexit obsessed Brits
think UK is above the International law.
She knows many of her own party won't back her and the DUP voted against bombing Syria last time. Where's the millions it's going
to cost coming from when we can't afford to give school kids a free dinner or pay for the NHS?
I really struggle to see to understand the argument for military action in Syria.
Firstly every time we intervene militarily we stuff it up and make matters ten times worse.
Gulf War 1 - left Sadam in power, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, pushed Sadam into being a major sponsor of anti Weatern
terrorism and then the Kurds were abandoned to Sadam at the end of the war and massacred.
Afghanistan - what the hell was that about? Trillions spent and it descended into Islamist anarchy within 5 minutes of
us keaving.
Gulf War 2 - set the Middle East on fire, total disintegration of Iraq, the death of millions of Iraqis and the rise of
ISIS.
Libya - failed state, massive refugee crisis.
But even if you assume that for once we can act militarily in a way that doesn't make the situation worse - what is it that
we are trying to achieve?
Assad has won. The opposition has been killed or expelled from the country and the resistance is down to a few villages which
are being mopped up.
The time for a military response was 7 years ago - it is an absolutely pointless waste of time now - unless the point is just
to make us feel better about ourselves by "doing something".
Has anyone asked.. why would Russia allow a chemical weapons attack in Syria only a few weeks after apparently launching
a chemical weapons attack in Britain?.. something is not right here.
The Putin regime may be nasty..but are they really that thick?? Remember remember 45 minutes to launch...(?) Tony Bliar
is haunting me..and I suspect..the entire nation
In the 1980s we sided with the jihadists and bin laden in Afghanistan. Which then was repaid with 9/11. Now we are siding
with the jihadists in Syria. The blowback will be bigger than 9/11.
You either don't get it Jonathan, or you bury your head in the sand. WHO do you want to get rid of first: the head chopping thugs
or someone else you can deal with later? This is not about who is the most desirable but who is for the time being the least worst?
For a start you are ASSUMING that the now completely unproven "evidence" about chemical attacks is a given. IT IS NOT.
Almost every single point you make is based upon speculation, mainstream media assumptions or downright lies. Wake up please.
For goodness sake why doesn't your newspaper have a single journalist who actually knows what is really going on in Syria?
It is hard to be pro interventionist after the epical f up in Iraq and Libya, but it seems to me that Assad should and must get
a hard punishment. Assad should not have WMDs since those weapons were handed over to be destroyed in Russia in 2014. Russia is
a guarantor of this deal. Yet, Assad has and continues to use WMDs in the presence and I believe advice from the Russian military.
As for the military intervention itself I think Israeli's deep incursions in Syria and the bombing of military bases also used
by Russian military have provided a lot of information about the capabilities and limitations of the Russian military technology
deployed in Syria.
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It concludes that the patients on
the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing
difficulties can be observed ....
What Freedland and others are advocating is illegal. They have no moral or legal
authority.
For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion, attacking a foreign country without legal
basis under international law represents the "supreme international crime". The launching
of an "aggressive war" is the "supreme crime" because it is the overarching offense which
contains within itself "the accumulated evil of the whole" (e.g. rape, torture, murder,
mass murder, ethnic cleansing, etc).
People were tried, convicted and hung at Nuremberg for the crime of waging wars of
aggression (as well as crimes against humanity).
Regardless of how unpalatable we may find it, even the verified use of chemical weapons
-be they by state or non-state actors - is not a legal basis to attack a country, any
country.
As Phyllis Bennis, Fellow and Director of the New Internationalism Project at the
Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., clearly explained (following the last
alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, and subsequent military strike on
the Syrian air base ordered by President Trump):
"The UN Charter is very vague about a lot of things, but it's very clear about one
thing, and that is, when is it legal to go to war? When is it legal to use a military
strike? There's only two occasions according to the UN Charter The UN Charter says, "A
country can use military force under two circumstances: Number one, if the Security Council
authorizes it." Number two, Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is about self-defence. But
it's a very narrowly constrained version of self-defence It says very explicitly, "If a
country has been attacked." "until the Security Council can meet, immediate self-defence is
allowed." Neither of those two categories applied here. So, it was clearly an illegal
act."
It looks more and more that everything was staged and everything was controlled by Western
intelligence agencies with the specific goal.
Notable quotes:
"... That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the wider region. ..."
"... If the price of selling arms to Saudi Arabia is having to stage nerve agent attacks in the UK and in Syria, one has to ask: Is it really worth it? ..."
Read Robert Fisk in the Independent. He, as always, has nailed it. The Brits and the US have
no authority to take action with their past record of use of Chemical and Atomic weapons.
The Syrian Negotiation Commission has called for action to deter Assad from killing
civilians. What they envisage is that each time Assad launches a deadly attack on
noncombatants, allied forces reply by taking out one of the strategic assets he uses to
kill civilians. It could be an airfield, it could be a command centre. If the target were
aircraft, that would simultaneously inflict a cost on the regime and deprive it of the
means of dropping its barrel bombs and toxic, yellow cylinders. The objective would be to
make Assad pay a price for killing his own people, a price he has not paid until now.
Eventually, or so runs the hope, he would be deterred.
That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were
explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the
wider region.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Sacrificing women and children to achieve nefarious goals such as preparing the ground for
invasion dictated by economic or geopolitical interests is a typical Western intelligence agencies
plot.
The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as Assad kills and kills and kills,
racking up a death toll in Syria of 500,000
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes
segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have
died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth
it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."'
Sure, here's the UN OPCW investigation report which directly blames the Assad forces for
chemical attacks. Take as much time as you need.
https://undocs.org/S/2016/738
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It
concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical
symptoms.
No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be
observed from the footage. The patients interviewed in the video show little or no signs of
having been exposed to a toxic chemical".
"Charities"? Lol. I'll bet money nearly all of those 'charities' are actually PR fronts for
thuggish Islamist rebels.
A bit like how all the Syrians the Guardian manages to reach for 'skype interviews' are
positively desperate for massive aeriel bombardment of their own country, chastising the west
for not supplying the bearded types with anti-aircraft missiles and even suggesting targets
for American bombs.
I have recently taught two Syrian professionals. Of course Assad is evil, but they tell me
that some of the rebel militias are much more brutal and intolerant than Assad and if they
win Syria will go the way of Libya.
They also told me (which shocked me somewhat) that the
White Helmets tend to be hard line Islamists and send out propaganda videos which Western
media fail to question thoroughly.
"... Sky News cuts of British General. https://southfront.org/sky-news-cuts-off-former-british-general-while-he-questiones-douma-chemical-attack / ..."
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
(@lloyd_rm)
It is worth noting that the British Government approved exports of dual use precursors for
chemical weapons including sarin to Syria between 2004 and 2012, after the civil war began
and after Assad was accused of using gas. CAEC report (2015): pic.twitter.com/TsvthAcZRR
April 13, 2018
Further down his thread is a tweet where someone has a screen-grab of a Mail Online story
from 2013. It talks about leaked information about clearance given by the US Government for a
British security company to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria in order to provide a
pretext for bombing.
I have no idea whether this is true or whether it was genuinely from Mail Online, perhaps
someone with more know-how than me could find out.
At first, I laughed at the Russian suggestion that the attack on Douma had been staged.
Now I'm not so sure.
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
Russia has transferred forty Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Syria' Air Defence.
This is the latest air defence technology (the system is in service since 2012) - a combined
short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system
against aircrafts, helicopters, precision munitions, cruise missiles and UAVs.
You face the same the liars with the sexed up dossier who went on to murder hundreds of
thousands in Iraq and Libya. This is all too reminiscent of previous interventions
Consider WW1, Suez, Iran 1953, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and every other western
militarily intervention in the ME - whether directly or by proxy - and identify one that hasn't
just caused more instability, death, violence and displacement than there was already?
e are caught between a rock, in the form of the recklessness of Donald Trump, and a hard
place, shaped by the cruelty of Bashar al-Assad. This is the choice that now confronts citizens
and their representatives in Britain, France and the US. The reasons to resist signing up for
any project led by Trump should be obvious, with the newly published testimony of James Comey,
the FBI director he fired, providing a fresh reminder.
Trump is a congenital liar who is devoid of empathy, a narcissist with a nihilist's view of
the world. These are not mere character defects; they have a bearing on the decisions the de
facto leader of any action in Syria would take. Among the reasons I opposed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq was my fundamental distrust of George W Bush and his circle, especially on the matter
of motive. Trump, with his tweeted mood swings – first, vowing to withdraw from Syria
altogether, then threatening an imminent missile bombardment, then signalling a delay –
makes Bush look like a statesman.
But even if a moral paragon were sitting in the Oval Office, there would be grounds for
restraint. The record of past western military interventions in the Middle East is bloody and
shaming, as the peoples of both Iraq and Libya can testify. Barack Obama, no gung-ho cowboy,
was the commander-in-chief in the latter case. And yet what was originally billed as a discrete
military action to prevent an impending civilian slaughter in Benghazi escalated into a
bombardment that led to regime change and mayhem. It stands as a textbook illustration of
western bombs' ability to make a bad situation worse.
It's clear now that although Assad has 'won' the war a status quo of him ruling a
predominately Sunni country can't be returned to. He seeks to terrorise and punish the
Syrian people under the protection of Russia and Iran.
Even though the army which has made such huge sacrifices for the Syrian state is about 70%
Sunni?
The US and her allies have to intervene, otherwise the rule of international law is
worthless.
Why? Even if your premise above were true, which it isn't, why is it our job to intervene
in every country with an imperfect system? Or are you proposing we bomb every Middle Eastern
country where people are privileged and granted citizenship merely on account of their
religion?
I love these guys who won't do their own research. Why not? Axe to grind? This is just one
example from 2013. There's more but I'm too busy to look up public shit for you.
Spot on look what happened to Sadaam after he switched to the Euro for Iraq oil sales.
Ghaddafi had similar plans.
Without reserve currency status and petrodollar with US economy will collapse under the $21T
dollar debt.
Russia and China have recently agreed a bilateral trade agreement which cuts out the
dollar.
The US cannot permit this ...as always follow the money.
Some people murder others for political and ideological reasons the military industrial
complex starts wars and conflicts ,murdering millions for profit....evil personified
Could this whole drama be because China and Russia are ditching the petrodollar?
I watched the video of the attack and it looks fake to me.. those children are not crying
because of chlorine.. they have their eyes wide open..first thing you do when you have
chlorine in your eyes is touch your face and close your eyes..whole thing looks dodge..just
my opinion. Those children are wide eyed and looking at the camera..something you wouldn't do
if you'd just been gassed.
"... The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument, particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power" argument, I do not know. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be coincidence. ..."
"... The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid, fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza. ..."
"... Hence the destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated "crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way. ..."
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and don't forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
Orwell certainly chose his words well when he called the UK 'Airstrip One' in his book 1984.
The UK government, the US neocons yapping little poodle. All cheered on by our always on
message main stream media.
We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels"
in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside
Syria
So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA
and MI6.
I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to
face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.
Syria is surrounded by wealthy gulf countries, many of whom frequently buy weapons from the
US and UK. They have the money, the firepower, and the space to not only house fleeing
refugees, but also bomb Assad back to the stone age. They haven't, because they lack
testicular fortitude and are always looking west for solutions.
The US, UK and France act like they own the world. Iran vs Iraq, the creation of Israel, and
Saudi Arabia, Sykes-Picot - western countries played a major part in all of this. In the
absence of evidence, it's about time we kept out of it.
Here we have a translated transcript of Shulgin's testimony at OPCW's Hague HQ where he
points out the 8 fundamental British lies over the Skripal attack. He prefaces his remarks
thusly:
"I would like to start my speech with the words that belong to the great thinker Martin
Luther, "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it, the bigger it becomes".
"This wise aphorism is fully applicable to politics. He who has chosen the path of
deception will have to lie again and again, making up explanations for discrepancies,
spreading disinformation and doing forgery, desperately using all means to cover the tracks
of the lies and to hide the truth.
"The United Kingdom has entered this slippery path. We can clearly see all of this on the
example of the "Skripal case" fabricated by the British authorities, this poorly disguised
anti-Russian provocation accompanied by an unprecedented propaganda campaign, taken up by a
group of countries, and the finalized unprecedented expulsion of diplomats under a
far-fetched pretext. Please, do not try to pass this group for the international community
– it is far from that."
It seems that BZ was detected not only by Spiez, but also by a lab in the Netherlands. The
explanation given is that BZ was added to the specimens in order to validate the competence
of the contracted labs. Furthermore, they attempted to explain away the existence of pristine
Novichok in the specimens in a dosage that would have been fatal, thus confirming that the
Spiez lab did indeed find such pristine Novichok. You can't make this sh*t up.
Oh, what a tangled web! The wonder is not so much that MI5/MI6 would perpetrate such a
false flag, but that they would be so utterly incompetent about it.
Clarification: The reference to "pristine" Novichok is that Spiez found the toxic agent in
a non-degraded form that could not have survived either within the human body or in a
collected specimen. They thought it was a contamination. My opinion is that it was added by
the British before delivering the specimens, just to be sure the contracted labs would detect
it. Also, the fact they claimed to have deliberately contaminated the specimens with BZ is a
clear indication it could just as easily be that the BZ was there from the beginning and the
actual contamination was with the agent from the Novichok family. Zakharova called it
"weird." I'll say!
PavewayIV @143,
Funny you should mention a "preemptive protective attack." The Bush preemption doctrine must
not have been found suitably effective for domestic propagandist purposes; as since then, if
I am not mistaken, the preferred move has been to engineer an actual "event" that the US is
forced to "respond" to. The WMD bombast fit the preemption doctrine. The relatively more
modest "chemical attack" has the advantage of being easily produced whenever necessary. I
think this development signals an advance in the rhetoric of propaganda between Bush II and
Obama. Perhaps the PR folks judged Americans to be finally more stupid than malicious as a
group. Optimistically put.
anti_republocrat @146
I believe there were four samples (2 bio, 2 enviro); I think it is likely that the 2 bio
samples are the ones with BZ in the control. Why? Pure coincidence, procedure, unrelated to
anything, etc. Or because the Skripals, and not their doorknob, were poisoned with BZ.
Now listening to RT reminds me BBC and Voice of America listeing in the USSR ;-) You
definitly bacomes a dissident for doing that.
Notable quotes:
"... I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting. ..."
"... But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening. Quite literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours' and 'The missiles are coming.' ..."
I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting.
But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening.
Quite literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours'
and 'The missiles are coming.'
And they still let him in rule one of the most powerful countries on the Earth with a vast
mass of WMD and Theresa May is trying reason with a fucking moron. Hey Guardian if Trump is
talking like this my swearing is the least of our problems, so please don't moderate. We need
someone to Moderate the madmen.
As I've said , I consider the term 'putinbot' - infantile and indicative of a lack of logical
argumentation as it is - as a compliment, since it appears to be code for those who retain
the ability to think for themselves and not fall glumly for the latest official line.
since the OPCW proved it was Putin who tried to murder British civilians with nerve
agents.
Actually, they proved no such thing, but in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
I'd never really watched much RT news, but intersting to see their extensive coverage of
their diplomats who, despite not speaking English as native, can conduct hours of press
conference in a civil and diplomatic fashion.
May weeping for the innocents of Syria as she signs off on a conveyor belt of bombs to be
dropped on innocents in Yemen. She's being raised up by the British media alongside Blair and
Cameron as one of the greatest humanitarian of modern times.
"Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical"
He also used poison gas to kill thousands of his own Kurdish civilians, the Reagan
administration was in many ways a moral cesspit. They knew exactly what he was doing. A
spokesman said the Iranians - who never used Chemical Weapons on principle - used the poison
gas, on Iraqi Kurds. I think Reagan never really understood this, that is my assessment of
his character, he saw what reality he wanted to see, but nothing else.
" Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than 400,000 have died
since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction, too, can be
deadly"
And how many died after the war was "won" in Iraq. And how many would have died trying to
remove assad. Toppling assad would almost certainly not have brought peace. Your analysis is
simplistic and blinkered and definately doesn't contain any proof of anything. Sometimes
there's just not a solution. The current proposed bombing campaign smacks of
somethingmustbedoneism. Those responsible for the gas attacks must face justice. But it might
have to be further down the line.
We're now in a strange position where the media is actually behind the government. May is
doubtful about bombing because she's a politician and so has to constantly monitor her
popularity, but the only people left still writing in 'newspapers' are still programmed to
want war and bombing because it always used to sell.
The UN duly investigated and in October concluded unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas.
You omitted to mention that the same report also concludes that ISIL deployed Sulphur
Mustard, isn't this the same gas that France claims to have evidence regarding the recent
incident?
Besides, how much evidence do we need? Even before Douma, Assad's use of chemical
weapons had been documented seven times this year alone.
The link you provided to back-up this claim contains no substantiative evidence to
attribute those incidents to Assad.
Clearly both sides in this conflict appear to have used chemical weapons, making
assumptions or false accusations of blame at this stage is incredibly dangerous. I'm in total
agreement with Jeremy Corbyn, we need a solid investigation on which the international
community can act. Any potential escalation of this awful conflict must be avoided at all
costs, particularly when it involves a nuclear armed superstate, considering the on-going
humaitarian crisis in Syria and how it has already affected the world. Furthermore we must
not allow a cabinet of a minority government to make any final decisions on the UK
involvement in further militrary action, our elected representatives MUST be allowed
to debate and decide a course of action, otherwise our democracy is in a far worse state than
I could have possibly imagined.
Theresa May leads a minority government propped up by an unlawful bung to a right wing
extremist group. May, her Cabinet of half wits and her self serving party have a mandate for
sweet FA, and that includes killing people in our name.
There is massive, overwhelming opposition in the UK to May's attempt to join Trump &
Macron in bombing Syria and to by-passing our democratic parliament, but who would have
thought it?
The media are generally presenting Theresa May with a free ride to cause death and
destruction on a massive scale. Claiming she's joining an international coalition (even
though it consists of only 2 other countries) and having the backing of the Cabinet and
therefore possessing the authority to go to war.
The reality is that she's virtually politically isolated and working in defiance of the
British people. Labour - and most other opposition parties, including the Lib Dems, SNP,
Plaid, and the Greens are totally against military intervention and calling for a full,
democratic debate in Parliament.
Then the Conservative Party itself is bitterly divided over the issue.
And only 22% of British people would support the war effort, according to a poll in the
Times.
The timing is being forced by Donald Trump and the US, so where's the substance in the
Conservative claim that they're 'taking back control'?
And then any intervention is likely to cost billions, so what about The Deficit? And what
about that magic money tree?
Moreover, the Government maintain we cannot allow such inhumanity in Syria to go
unchallenged. So where is the outcry at defenceless citizens being killed in Gaza? And in
Yemen? And in Saudi Arabia? What accounts for the blatant double standards? What are they not
telling us?
And why does the British Goverment justicfy selling all these lethal and inhumance weapons
to these countries in the first place?
Where is the media reminding the Government of what happened in Iraq, in Libya and in
Afghanistan?, whenever we intervened?
Where is the media remembering the findings of the Chilcott Report?
If this was Labour nationalising the railways or expropriating land in an emergency bill
to launch a massive house-building programme, the BBC and mass media would quote every
adversary and critic they could muster and express total outrage at any attempt to by-pass
Parliament.
The Syrian conflict is a hugely complex quagmire and we enter it at our peril. We need a
much more objective Press to scrutinise Government policy, before this lunacy unravels and
triggers a seriously calamitous hot war between the Superpowers, from which we'd all be
losers.
Jeremy Corbyn is often mocked and scorned by the media for his measured reactions, but his
call for the UK to use its influence to defuse tensions makes him one of the only responsible
and mature political leaders around right now!!
The government and the BBC have been using the words "suspected chemical attack" in Syria and
that Russia is "highly likely" to be responsible for the Salisbury affair.
Now if that isn't official doubt I don't know what is.
Still May happy to drop bombs on this basis without parliamentary approval (if Donald says
so that is)!
This is pathetic. The mouthpieces of the British government (Guardian and BBC) have spent the
last week on a steady pendulum of demanding war, shitting themselves, then when the rhetoric
calms down a bit, demanding war again. The U.K., its security agencies and its house-trained
media are destabilising the world.
"... How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective ..."
"... Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years? ..."
"... For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end ..."
"... Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons. ..."
Here's an idea Jonathan for another solution. How about some basic honesty about the role
the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled
by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know,
might just be incredibly effective
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why not? We're watching Israelis shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians, we're
watching our favourite Saudis bomb and kill Yemeni civilians, we're watching our
Nobel-winning inspirational Myanmar leader oversee the persecution, massacre and forced
displacement of an entire people, we're watching the North Korean leader oppress and starve
his people while stepping closer to a nuclear war against a currently volatile superpower,
we're watching the Philipino head of state launching a literal war against low-level drug
dealers and junkies, we're watching several central Asian dictators imprison and torture
dissidents and oppress their people while robbing them of their national wealth, we're
watching the Chinese and Russian leaders do pretty much the same, we're watching the Turkish
leader kidnap dissidents from EU countries, imprison thousands of alleged dissidents and
invade a neighbouring country to fight against part of said countries' inhabitants, we're
watching corrupt politicians, media and judges completing the final touches of a coup in the
fifth largest country in the world, and then there's Africa, which is a whole other chapter.
What specifically is it about Syria that made you decide that yeah, all these things are
pretty bad, but that's the one thing we really have to do something about?
Perhaps that was why, five years ago, the House of Commons voted to leave the Assad
regime untouched. Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than
400,000 have died since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction,
too, can be deadly.
Inaction? Really? Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided
financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure,
but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the
atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years?
For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an
end. Israel has to comply with UN resolutions and the US has to stop using its veto to block
those resolutions that seek to make Israel comply to international standards of acceptable
behaviour.
If we can't do that we can forget getting Assad or Putin or anyone else to respect
anything we have to say. As it stands the so called West has no moral authority in the Middle
East.
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why is this supposed slaughter such an imperative when we seem to approve of and even
profit from selling weapons to slaughters elsewhere in the region
Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda
of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical
reasons.
"... Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria: That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war. ..."
"... Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then. ..."
Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria:
That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that
not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war.
It would be just another dictator, the likes of which can be found all over the world
without columnists noticing it.
Strangely though, all that is deplored is that the US didn't do even more. That they
didn't also do a full blown invasion.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
Pay for what? Be President of a country marked out for regime change by the West and
successfully managing to fight off the West's proxy armies of terrorists over seven years in
defence of that country?
Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading
nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on
today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being
subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then.
Assad has always acted in this like any other authoritarian government anywhere in the Middle
East would, fighting a civil war. Israel is just as ruthless when facing a threat to its
authority.
This mess was financed, planned, egged on and armed by the U.S., it's junior partners and
its clients in Turkey and the Gulf. And it goes back years before the rebellion against
Assad. The Wahabbi rebels have been given billions in cash, arms and training, funneled
through Turkey and the Gulf states.
Now we have Washington, London and Paris shrieking outrage and promising revenge against a
strongman they unleashed as the result of yet another regime change adventure. And then
there's the incredible hypocrisy and cynicism of using Al-Qaeda affiliated actors to do
it.
Assad's wartime iteration, like ISIS, is the result of American greed, ambition, pride and
the old imperialist bent for aggression as a way of imposing its geopolitical will.
Watch the Unbearable video gain. The children are no foaming at the mouth, their colouration
is not cyanotic, they do not appear to be in respiratory distress. The premise of the
argument is not based on fact. These children are not the casualties of a gas attack. GROW UP
and recognize the propaganda.
The article takes a self-righteous moral high ground while calling for some vague affair of
violence. I can't help but notice that these articles by people who pretend to be moderates
and centrists have a habit of turning reality and morality on their head. It's dangerous and
very Orwellian stuff.
The question that I struggle to answer is, "Are journalists like this actually duped by
propaganda themselves, or are they knowingly part of the process of dissemination?"
What I do not struggle to see is that they are undoubtedly part of the prevailing
neolib/neocon philosophy which we rapidly need to dismantle.
In another development (probably to run with the Syria script) the UK announces it has a
dossier that proves Russia was experimenting with delivering nerve agents from door handles.
Not as hilarious as breathlessly closing a children's playground near the Skripal's days
after the event for "contamination checks" even though it had been raining in the days in
between (the narrative was presumably the dastardly Russian agents planned to kill a few
innocent kids for good measure).
As usual, our wise men are busy preparing the evidence dossier for this gas attack. Hacking
someone's phone is now evidence of you delivering chemical weapon. I wonder how many doses of
novichok NOTW managed to deliver to its phone hacking victims.
Hope everyone understands that telling lies is not good, and it is especially disgusting when
lies form the basic argument for launching a war or some prolonged military assaults.
Please, compare the articles, this one and those mentioned below, and judge for yourself
whether J. Freedland can be trusted.
1. J. Freedland, about the West: "The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as
Assad kills and kills and kills, And yet that's what we've done".
O. Jones: "The US has been bombing the country and supplying arms to rebels for some time.
Our client states ... have funnelled weapons and billions of dollars into the conflict,
backing extremist groups responsible for multiple atrocities".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/attack-syria-disastrous-warmongers-middle-east-unjust
2. J. Freedland: "The taboo on the use of such (chemical) weapons held, with exceptions, for
nearly a century. It meant there was a limit".
For the actual details of such "limit" see:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-syria-war-uk-chemical-weapons-attack-iran-iraq-thatcher-russia-a8300881.html
3. It looks like J. Freedland is sure only Assad "kills and kills and kills" in this civil
war. Does anyone believe this, i.e. that the opposing jihadists have never killed during the
war?
they're quite happy to gloss over the absolutely vile nature of Assad's regime.
Strawman. It's a nasty regime in all sorts of ways but no more so - probably less so -
than many regimes enthusiastically supported and armed by the British government.
If we're talking about culpability, it's worth noting that the rebel groups have become
radicalised over time -
That old fib! This was an Islamist uprising from day one. How does a liberal pro-democracy
type suddenly morph into a bearded Islamist overnight?
And yes, we gave aid to the rebels. Did it prolong the war? Possibly.
Possibly? It didn't prolong the war, it pretty much caused the war.
Should we have done nothing? Possibly yes, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing.
Hindsight eh? So you thought "Yup, let's join in with the Saudis and other Gulf
dictatorships in arming extremist Islamist rebels in a crucial Middle Eastern country.
Nothing could possibly go wrong! That sort of thing has been a roaring success everywhere
it's been tried."
Make Assad pay ?.......pay for what Johnny .... for defending his people from murderous
insurgents who are being constantly ferried into and supplied by hostile countries with the
intent of horrifically slaughtering anyone they can get their claws on in order to initiate a
reign of terror that they hope will weaken the moral of the people and the government?
......Jesus, I don't think I've read such a nastier piece of pure propaganda than this in the
Guardian ever before.
Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical weapons, whereas Assad's is some unprecedented crime.
And let's not pretend that Saddam paid for his use of chemical weapons - the West punished
him for the transgression of threatening Saudi Arabia, nothing more.
In August 2012, as reported by the Times , William Hague writes that discussions are taking
place with the Free Syrian Army:
"This week, on my instructions, my ambassador-level representative to the Syrian
opposition has contacted and is meeting political elements of the Free Syria Army."
"We want to deter those committing war crimes by making it possible for them to be held to
account. We will provide urgent training and equipment to Syrian human rights activists,
including cameras, video recorders and forensic equipment.
The aim is to help them to document human rights violations, identify the military commanders
responsible and gather medical forensic evidence to be used in trials. Britain has already
trained more than 60 Syrian human rights activists to collect information to support criminal
investigations. This new assistance will enable others to do the same."
The Guardian headline on this subject reads: "Syria: UK to give £5m to rebels":
Why are the Guardian and its writers continuing to peddle the lie that the Syrian Government
has been proved to have used chemical munitions? For seven long years now the Syrian people
and their government have had to fight off a jihadi onslaught armed and financed by NATO and
the Gulf autocracies. With help from Russia and Iran, they are winning: they have no need to
use chemical weapons and they know that doing so is to invite intervention on the side of the
Islamist terrorists. The terrorists, by contrast, know that their only chance lies in such
intervention and that convincing the World that the Syrian Government has used chemical
weapons is the best way to bring it about.
It is also obscene for Mr Friedland to ascribe all of the casualties of the Civil War to
the Government while ignoring the terrorist tactic of occupying and defending populated
areas. The Syrian Arab Army is no more responsible for the resulting casualties than were the
pro Western forces for the destruction of Mosul during its liberation from ISIS. I am sick to
the teeth of formerly respectable media like the Guardian and the BBC functioning as
propagandists for jihadi murderers and terrorists, particularly now that doing so is pushing
us towards a very dangerous international conflict.
I watched that idiot Jo Johnson last night going on about how the international community had
banned chemical weapons in 1925 and no one pulled him up on it. Britain developed and
stockpiled chemical weapons all through the 20th Century- the 'greatest' Britain of all time
Churchill regularly argued for their use on 'lesser' races. The US (our allies in this) is
the same US that dumped unbelievable amounts of agent orange on Vietnam at the same time it
bombed a poor undeveloped country 'into the stone age'.
A woman in the audience pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of abhorring Asssad's actions
(quite rightly) but at the same time arming the Saudis to kill more civilians and supporting
the Israeli government (which whilst clearly not in the same league as Assad or the Saudis is
still a major human rights violater). Unsurprisingly she was cut off and the 'left-wing' BBC
moved on and ignored her points
We went into Iraq because Blair warned, in the sternest terms, British cities could be under
imminent attack from Iraqi WMD. How ridiculous do those grave statements, made to a hushed
HoC, look today?
Graun, genuinely bugger off with this drumbeat for war. Seriously, hasn't the current
murderous anarchy in Libya given you pause for thought?
There's no definitive evidence yet available that proves Assad's forces carried out a
chemical attack. Furthermore, whilst it's not inconceivable that he did, it does seem to defy
logic. Why invite Western intervention when you're winning the war? The Syrian opposition had
far more to gain from the deployment of chemical weapons than Assad did.
Assad is a loathsome individual, but he's probably the only thing standing in the way of a
Jihadist Theocracy being established in Syria. To put in bluntly, it's in our interests that
he wins this war. The alternative is worse.
I wish I could say I was shocked by the latest pro war tub thumping by this increasingly
unrecognisable paper. Sadly it's has become all too synonymous with its support for Theresa
May and its attempts to persuade an unwilling public to join the hysteria. Freedland says
that Assad's guilt is beyond doubt; no it isn't. He talks of the effectiveness of bombing in
the Balkan conflict, conveniently ignoring Iraq and Syria. He ignores the obvious incentive
for ISIS or perhaps he would prefer "rebels", to launch an attack in a a desperate attempt to
recover a war they are losing. He ignores the war in Yemen and the murderous regimes around
the world that we seem totally uninterested in putting right. No, Mr Freedland, I and I think
many others are not giving Mrs May her Falklands moment at your behest.
Most baffling is is French president Emmanuele Macron's fierce reaction. There's no other nation which has suffered so much
from terrorist attacks as France. And yet now its president is determined to use his fighter planes as the de facto airforce for
the the jihadi extremists. Macron went even as far as making his statements with the Saudi prince at his side, the leader of a
country which is known for funding the jihadis!
Weird times.
Jay_Q123 -> RudolphS 13 Apr 2018 16:25
Macron just got back from a few days hanging on out with the Saudi Arabian elite, who have
been the most destructive force in the Syrian war and spreads terrorism all over the world
guaranteed to spend tens of billions on French weapons.
Agreed Macron is so proud about the weapons Saudi Arabia bought of him. And strangely enough
Saudi Arabia supports the ISIS head choppers in Syria, I think of a coincidence. And I didn't
mention the gaz pipeline crossing Syria, that if Russia/Assad win, will be beyond the control
of Europeans, a real bummer, given that Russia controls the supply east of Germany. I guess
civilian death, is the only thing in the forefront of the France/UK/US preoccupations.
Surely, they wouldn't condone civilians dying for geo-political reasons?
Yes, I remember Rice, Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld telling the world that they had evidence
that Saddam was hoarding WMD. I'm still waiting to hear what it was. Now M. Macron spouts the
same ambiguous nonsense expecting us to take his word for it.
Trump publicly states that US troops are being withdrawn from Syria. The next thing you
know, Assad is allegedly gassing civilians. That makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? If
there's a sure-fire way of making sure you're on the wrong end of a bit of American 'shock
and awe,' it's gassing innocents. Assad must have a death wish; or so they'd have us believe.
The more I read about this fiasco, the more I think David Icke is the most rational man on
the planet.
Western neoliberal governments lost the remnants of patina of legitimacy on international
scene and now look like bloodthirsty predators, they always were.
But where is the incontrovertible proof that the regime is in fact responsible for the attack
rather than 'rebel groups' now on the point of final defeat, who'd wish to draw in the major
NATO powers? Why would the regime afford the US, France and UK the pretext to do one thing
that'd undermine Assad's otherwise certain victory? The timing seems odd indeed while Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and Israel act with impunity against minority populations. Each of the latter
has form and interest the destruction of Syria in this proxy war.
The UK thinks it's "highly likely" Assad is to blame for the chemical attack. France says
it has evidence Assad is responsible but won't say what it is. US Secretary of Defence Mattis
believes a chemical attack took place but says there's no evidence. And depending on the day
of the week, Russia believes there was either no chemical attack or if there was then it was
staged by the UK.
And for good measure we appear to be going headlong into war on the basis of all this.
The UN investigations concluded that the chemicals had come from Syrian Army stocks which
there wasn't much doubt about to start with. Where they were less conclusive was the matter
of who had deployed them given the capture of large stocks of munitions by the terrorists
early in the war. On the basis of cui bono? it seems more likely that it was the
terrorist side who sought to provoke Western intervention by staging chemical incidents
rather than the Syrian Government who had little to gain and much to lose from the use of any
kind of WMD.
First Blair holding onto an idiot's shirt tails to attack a Middle Eastern country based
on hearsay and no coherent withdrawal policy. Now we have May and Macron holding the hands of
an even bigger idiot whose populist thoughts change by the minute so no hope of any
withdrawal plan.
Does May and her hawks (Gove, Johnson) really want to be compared with Trump, Kim, Putin,
Assad, W Bush, Blair et al in the history books?
The rebels in Syria have a history of using sarin, chlorine and mustard gas against troops
and civilians. But Washington, London and Paris are completely dummy on this. Not a whisper.
Rather straight to accusations and threats against the regime they have been trying to
overthrow for years.
I don't know who did it. But I know who lies every time they take a breath if they
consider it in their interests. Truth is the first casualty. I don't believe any of them.
Noticeable that the Guardian live coverage provides Western refutations of Russia's claims of
evidence regarding a staged false attack, but doesn't actually cover the evidence the
Russians have provided - testimony from medical staff who claim to be witnesses. Now I'm not
so stupid as to take these claims as gospel, the Russians are just as capable as anyone of
finding a couple of fake or pressured witnesses. However the failure of the Western press to
even elaborate on the evidence, even just to ridicule and debunk it, is suspicious.
It is getting very tiresome tying to read between the lines of what Britain, America, Russia,
etc, etc, etc spin to us in a constant barrage of disposable half truths. The worrying part
is that it is now harder then ever to gauge if these 'bastions of truth' really believe their
own bullshit or not and end up dropping us all into a war of no return.
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with
Eurasia."
The White Helmets were set up by a Briton (I can't remember exactly but I think he was ex
intelligence services). They've consistently been shown to have links with extremists. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if what the Russians are claiming is accurate.
Well the problem is that the vast majority of Syrians support Assad. This chemical attack, if
it is confirmed by the OPWC investigation, could have been staged by the ISIS head choppers,
or it was Assad. Nobody has a clue, so we need an investigation and see, whether, this is
just propaganda bullshit from the head choppers. One thing is sure, if you care about
civilian life, the best option is to accept that Assad and Russia won. Else, well you a
hypocrite, and you don't care about civilian lives at all, but care more about the UK/US and
France gaining the geo-political upper hand, without a care in the world about civilian life.
Hence, you just as big a sociopath than Assad.
Yes Millions of Gallons of Chemicals were rained down on Vietnam including Agent Orange and
Napalm during the war.
Plus White Phosphorous was used by the US in Iraq as an "anti-personnel" weapon.
Look, the Russians have a microscopic force in Syria, about 30 jets, very low army presence,
usually one soldier per SAA Unit. The West and especially that inadequate May can look good
by bombing some camels and then letting the Daily Mail and the BBC do the rest. Yes the
Russians have S400 missiles in Syria but only to protect important targets and they simply
don't have enough missiles to shoot down 100+ allied cruise missiles. The Russkies will just
have to take the hit (again) but it will change nothing in the long run, except relations
will deteriorate even further.
One has the impression poodles Macron and May, in their ridiculous eagerness to assist Trump
with his nice new smart shiny social media bombing of Syria, appear pathetic, even stupid,
for their precipitate grandstanding now that the USA has, for the time being, reigned back
from an immediate punishing strike on Syria.
The "slaughter his own people" phrase is western spin; even the anti-government SOHR quotes a
more or less even split between government forces, rebels and civilians, which means as civil
wars go, this one is comparatively humane.
Compare the death toll of hundreds on the final assault on Aleppo with that on Raqqa
(thousands) or Mosul (tens of thousands) or the civilian toll in Indo-China and Korea (>10
million) and you'll realise the identity of the greatest war criminal of them all
Ultimately Trump is a typical playground bully, he's a bullshitter, a blowhard. All talk.
Trump was the same with Kim, and is the same with Putin and Assad.
Like all bullies underneath he is a coward, he threatens Putin with ridiculous teenager
Tweet threats, but as soon as Putin but back Trump backpeddles.
"... How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline was a pre requisite for that recognition. ..."
"... And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid. ..."
How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into
Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't
believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline
was a pre requisite for that recognition.
Israel? which is not happy with Iran and Lebanon having a presence in Syria, worried that
America was withdrawing.
AlQaeda or the Syrian Rebels, many are both who are losing the war and this is a last
desperate attempt to drag in America and the west?
You've also got Turkey and the Kurds (the Kurds were abandoned by the West after they had
fulfilled their useful purpose), both also players in the region but I can't see a motive
here.
And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America
and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral
indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid.
Any or all of the above could be the true motivation. I am no fan of Assad, Putin, or
Trump or May (or the Blair clone Macron) but the question you have to ask yourself is who
gains from this? And is. this in the interests of a resolution to a conflict, to your safety
or is it something else?
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
"... The best solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence. ..."
"... It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are. ..."
'.....Given Russia's presence, it would not be easy...... '
Understatement of the century. If you start bombing strategic military targets you are
quite, likely to hit Russian planes and troops.
As I said yesterday - What is the point ? Assad ( helped by his ally Russia ) has all but
won the war ( which makes his use of chemical weapons surprising / a big mistake ) - The best
solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical
Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence.
Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemeni children with UK manufactured bombs.
The Syrian situation was made far worse by the USA / France and the UK arming extremist
Islamic groups during the ' Arab Spring ' in an attempt to depose the legitimate ruler of a
sovereign nation.
We don't say much about China's interference in Tibet these days, do we ?
Or the effect of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War ?
"here are many, many notable historians who state the death toll as high as 135,000 "
The biggest single death toll in WWII was the low level firebombing of Tokyo, large areas
of Japans capital city were wiped out. With houses as flammable as you can ever imagine, an
unimaginably horror filled event. The Japanese death toll was around 100,000 dead. You are
saying more died in Dresden?
"On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping
2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16
square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and
130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded
history." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo
It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any
western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are.
OK so let's attack Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen.
And Myanmar for their behaviour. Then there's Mexico, where the cartels keep murdering people. Really, let's apply the same standards everywhere.
How will this proposed action change anything? The Syrians have hidden everything that matters, the Russians will get 90 minutes warning
of the targets .... It's a PR exercise on the usual lines of "Something must be done .... this is something
..... "
Russia has transferred forty Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Syria' Air Defence.
This is the latest air defence technology (the system is in service since 2012) - a combined
short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system
against aircrafts, helicopters, precision munitions, cruise missiles and UAVs.
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and dont forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favour of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:
"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S.
government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi
defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show
(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish
villages that killed 5000 civilians], and
(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a
fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its
diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
"Trump is a congenital liar who is devoid of empathy, a narcissist with a nihilist's view of
the world. These are not mere character defects; they have a bearing on the decisions the de
facto leader of any action in Syria would take. Among the reasons I opposed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq was my fundamental distrust of George W Bush and his circle, especially on the matter
of motive. "
That is why Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell fought so hard to oppose invasion of
Iraq. In the end they had to resort an academic paper to do it. I feel terrible for them.
Assad: So tell me, what is the military situation?
Generals: We are winning and winning decisively Mr President and the terrorists are
pulling out of East Ghoutta
Assad: Excellent news. I suggest we kill a few dozen innocent civilians in a gas attack to
celebrate.
Generals: Mr President, this would be utter folly. It would serve no possible military
purpose and would risk catastrophic air strikes against our military assets.
Assad: Do it anyway! ** strokes fluffy white cat with a Mwwahh, mwah, mwah. **
"... it's pretty obvious what the likes of Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their puritanical strain. ..."
"... Assad is no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA prominent among them ..."
"... The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold like Saddam and Gadaffi ..."
"... Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries. ..."
"... When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed by us. ..."
The situation in Syria is more nuanced than just calling out Assad as a butcher of his own
people. For one, he is a butcher of some of his own people, for many others he must
seem like a saviour as without his regime's resistance it's pretty obvious what the likes of
Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their
puritanical strain.
The real issue is that the established powers are struggling to cope with a multi-polar
world. It was only a few decades ago that the world's capitalists were looking forward to a
'new world order' without any serious opponents. But then things went wrong, and countries
refused to lay down for their new masters. Not only that, but Russia re-awoke and rejected
the funnelling of its wealth into the coffers of the West via a few carefully selected
oligarchs. Putin is undoubtedly not to liberal tastes, but he is the kind of leader Russians
are historically used to and who has put Russia back on the map as a world power.
Striking Syria now will not halt the suffering of the Syrian people, and it will place the
whole world in jeopardy. The potential price is too high. The best thing that could happen
now is that Trump is removed from office and replaced by a sane politician intelligent enough
to look after America's interests peacefully. Would the Syrian rebels have even started their
uprising if they hadn't thought that they would be backed-up by the liberal West? We should
withdraw from Syria and allow history and the Syrian people to make their own peace from the
rubble.
The two main points of this argument are so hypocritical that I want to start yelling at the
screen.
First, that Assad is a butcher because the war made half a million victims. No, Assad is
no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA
prominent among them. If they hadn't done that to advance their own strategic objectives and
to topple dictator they didn't like (because there's a lot of dictators that they like), the
war wouldn't have even started. The 500000 victims are on the US's conscience, not
Assad's.
Second, the idea that "It is indeed strange, but the extra revulsion at the use of
chemical weapons is not groundless. The taboo on the use of such weapons held, with
exceptions, for nearly a century."
Respectfully, it's bullshit. It emerged in 2013 that Saddam was helped by the USA gassing
50000 Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, in the 1980s- with chemical weapons developed
with the help of American, British and French companies, among others. Exactly those that
find unacceptable now the idea that 40 civilians *might* have been killed in a chemical
attack by the "butcher" Assad. So tell us, when are these countries going to bomb themselves,
as a just retribution for their heinous crimes?
But there is *no* evidence that Assad has even done this. On the contrary, Russia has even
accused the U.K government of being complicit in Douma.
Just apply logic to this: why would Assad do this? He has, buttressed by Russia, all but
'won' this wretched, heartbreaking civil war. So, on the cusp, he decides do use chemical
weapons which all but guarantees the U.S will stay in Syria funding the 'rebels' that he's
fighting. Sorry, it's just ludicrous to think he would do this.
The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold
like Saddam and Gadaffi, but with one subtle difference Syria is a government that has the
backing of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah from the start. That they will not let Assad fall
easily to have a puppet regime installed in Damascus that will do the West's bidding. No way
that was going to happen. Iran saw it as a chance to consolidate itself as a hegemon in he
Middle East and Russia as chance for payback time for their humiliation in Iraq and Libya,
they were treated as an irrelevant country.
Assad is lucky and knows it, the West does not seem to learn that their interventions are
resented around the world and smacks of neo-colonialism. Syria is third time unlucky, Russia,
Iran and Syria are goading the West. It is your move and one false move they will be laughing
for a long time. Lesson in this is let countries resolve their problems by themselves, Syria
will not be the first or last country to see the use of Chemical weapons. It is vile &
disgusting way to attack civilians but remember we supplied Saddam the same weapons to attack
Iran in the 1980's and the world did nothing then. The West is not part of the solution in
Syria neither from the start or now. Read the history books on who put the Alwaites and
Assad's in power. It was France, the same France claiming they have evidence against Assad
now. Please!
Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers
and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries.
When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a
vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed
by us. The war crime committed by Bommer Harris on the people of Dresden shows you cannot
bomb people into peace... So why are we still trying?
Not a supporter of any of the criminal operations that masquerade as governments worldwide,
but it's way past the time when I can believe a word the Western powers utter in their quest
to spread their vile economic doctrine.
For me the biggest question now is how best to avoid financing the evil they perpetrate
So the Russian military claimed a month ago that Syrian rebels were planning a chlorine
chemical weapon attack somewhere in Syria, three weeks later a chemical weapon chlorine
attack happens in Douma... but the UK government along with all the UK mainstream media do
not question perhaps it's the Jihadi/rebels who staged this attack, they ALL automatically
blame Assad? Stinks to high heaven.
President Assad and his wife, daughter of a UK BP man lived comfortably near my brother in
London's Chelsea for several years.
This all reminds me that the roles may have reversed nowadays but otherwise not much has
changed:
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration.
To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans.
The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial Theories,
1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
As much bad as Assad did, nothing is more worse than the killings on civilians done my the
"freedom fighters". Why is it for us Syria so important? How come other countries are not
getting involved in a Iraq 2.0 just the same warmongers who want to test their new toys...
USA, France and us... fighting a fight that costs us so much, plus the Brexit, plus the
eventual payment afterwards , I really do not understand. What the frick are we doing in
Middle East? Is there a English colony that we have forgotten? Or a France colony or even a
USA colony? This strikes me as a fight for either resources or for influence or for pleasing
the master Israel. I am clear of how this White Helmets operate , Eva Bartlett told us, and
do not forget that there are plenty of vids on the whole internet of how they operate "Lights
camera action" actors.
Labour calls for the attack on Douma to be "fully investigated". That sounds unarguable.
But then what? Jeremy Corbyn issued the same call after the chemical attack that killed at
least 74 at Khan Sheikhoun a year ago: demanding there be a "UN investigation and those
responsible be held to account". The UN duly investigated and in October concluded
unambiguously that the Assad regime had used sarin gas. But Corbyn greeted that verdict
with silence.
The report that Mr Freedland provides a link to, actually says:
"5. While the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic works to establish
the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the
country, it is not mandated to reach conclusions about attributing responsibility for
chemical weapons use. 1 Following a determination by the FactFinding Mission that a specific
incident in the Syrian Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as
weapons, the Mechanism conducts an investigation to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or those otherwise involved. In conducting
its investigation, the Mechanism relies on findings of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding the
use of chemicals as weapons in each incident and pursues a rigorous independent examination
of the available information surrounding such use so as to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, those responsible."
It doesn't appear to be claiming to be concluding "unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas." Am I missing something here?
Mr Freedland's allegation that "Corbyn greeted that verdict with silence" is highly
suspect:
"RT:Today, Moscow says it has evidence that rebels have used sarin gas. Earlier Britain
said that Assad forces were behind the chemical attack. But why didn't Britain and the US
come forward with the same sort of hard evidence that Russia has come forward with?
JC: That's an interesting question. I can't speak for the British or the US
governments, but they made these allegations about the use of chemical weapons – and
there are apparently stocks of chemical weapons being held in Syria, which may well have
fallen into opposition hands, or may still be in government hands, or maybe both – but
the assertion was made that they had been used. But no hard evidence came up, and indeed,
there was a great deal of skepticism surrounding the evidence that was never presented. And
the Russian evidence today appears much stronger, and they said they were going to put that
evidence in the hands of the United Nations - that has got to be a good thing. However,
proving or not proving this doesn't end the crisis, there has to be the rapid resumption of
talks by Geneva too, all parties must be involved – including Iran. If we're to bring
about a settlement, there's got to be involvement of Iran, as well as all the different
parties in Syria."
This post by Just in Thyme has just been mode rated:
"As the British government release shedloads of crocodile tears over their paid for White
Helmet video footage, and moan like spiteful children how they want to bomb more people, let
look at some other inconvenient facts.
The Yemeni Ministry of Human Rights announced on March 25 that the Saudi-led war had left
600,000 civilians dead and injured since March 2015. The United Nations says a record 22.2
million Yemenis are in need of food aid, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger.
Meanwhile the Saudis shovel their bits of silver into the empty coffers of the NATO
warmongers.
Who said money cannot buy influence, Its was the UK that backed Britain backed Saudi
Arabia's election to the United Nations top human right's body as part of a vote trading deal
– despite the Gulf State's appalling abuse record. Secret cables reportedly show that
Britain approached Saudi Arabia about the trade ahead of the 2013 election for membership of
the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Saudi regime has executed 135 people since January on
charges ranging from murder to witchcraft.
The lynch mob government, we all voted for, and this is what democracy is really all
about???"
Iran didn't instigate the Twin Towers or the London attacks, didn't instigate the invasion of
Iraq, didn't instigate the overthrowing of Libya, didn't instigate the war in Syria, didn't
instigate the war in Yemen and didn't fund and arm ISIS.
The gave support following US intervention. Mmm, I wonder why they have such an issue with
the US?
In an age of fake news and endless propaganda it's very difficult these days to see the woods
from the trees... The words butcher and thug are easily thrown around in the Syrian civil
war.
It appears some people have short memories as it wasn't that long ago when we were witnessing
the alternative world of Islamic State in Syria. Head choppers running amok and anyone
suspected of being gay being chucked off tall buildings. Women being flogged to death for
trumped up charges of adultery. Kids having their hands cut off for stealing apples.
To make matters worse these sadistic psychopaths were armed and driving around in vehicles
supplied by the West... It had developed into a living hell for many as the death cult of
Isis took hold.
I remember the so called thug Putin saying someone had to take on these terrorists...
The West were reluctant to do the dirty work required... So it came down to Russia to get
boots on the ground to help defeat Islamic State.
Why does the UK supply the terror supporters of the Arabian Peninsula with weapons while
fighting and vilifying Assad? This is real hypocrisy. Yemenis suffer horrendously from Saudi
attacks, the UK's close friends. Assad always guaranteed religious freedom and Syrians
enjoyed much more freedom than any of the Middle Eastern countries.
What's actually is disconcerting is the fact that mainline media have taken the alleged
chemical attack as a fact. They don't have their reporters on the ground or even Western
military personnel in the area. But a claim and some unauthenticated videos from headchoppers
are taken as a fact. A fact which is not allowed to be tested or critiqued. Does it mean they
just want more bombs and missiles to hammer Syria and any reason/justification would do?
"... British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. ..."
"... But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as " bloodthirsty ..."
"... British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty. ..."
"... Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. ..."
"... Islamic resistance ..."
"... We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed. ..."
"... Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed to return to the UK thereafter. ..."
"... This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has veered between the ludicrous and the reckless. ..."
"... As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS (whom it was later reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam. ..."
"... The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies with Russian support. ..."
Britain's strategic relationship with radical Islam goes back decades and continues to this
day. There is no more foul a stench than the stench of hypocrisy, and there is no more foul a
hypocrisy than the British government painting Bashar al-Assad as a monster when in truth he
and the Syrian people have been grappling with a twin-headed monster in the shape of
Salafi-jihadi terror and Western imperialism. Both are committed to destroying Syria as an
independent, non-sectarian state, and both are inextricably linked.
Author and journalist Mark Curtis charts in detail
the contours of this history in his book 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical
Islam':
" British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called
'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including
terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes
trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments
have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of
increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will
and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's
imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. "
As far back as the First World War, when the Middle East began to assume strategic
importance in the capitals of Western imperial and colonial powers, the British ruling class
went out of its way to identify and recruit loyal local proxies in pursuit of its regional
objectives. Britain's relationship with the Arab tribal chief, Ibn Saud, who would go on to
establish Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s, began in 1915 with the Darin Pact, demarcating the
territory then controlled by Saud as a British protectorate.
The following year, the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans erupted. Begun and inspired by
Saud's fierce rival, Sharif Hussein, head of the Hashemite Arab tribe, the revolt was heavily
bankrolled and supported by the British – a period immortalized in the exploits of
British military agent T E Lawrence, known to the world as Lawrence of Arabia.
But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the
radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as "
bloodthirsty " and " intolerant ." Regardless, when it came to its imperial
interests there was no tiger upon whose back the British ruling class was not willing to ride
during this period, and which, as events have proved, it has not been willing to ride
since.
The most egregious example of this policy, one that continues to have ramifications today,
was the support provided by the UK to the Afghan mujahideen in the late 1970s and 1980s. The
insurgency's objective was the overthrow of Kabul's secular and left-leaning government, whose
crime in the eyes of the Islamist insurgency's US and UK sponsors was that it had embraced the
social and economic model of Moscow rather than Washington during the first Cold War.
British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was
indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of
a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious
oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty.
Mark Curtis again:
" Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the
resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic
backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized
themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. "
While Washington's primary role in channeling military and financial support to the Afghan
mujahideen, known as
Operation Cyclone , may until have succeeded in overshadowing London's role in this dirty
war, declassified British government cabinet papers which were made public in 2010 and
reported in the UK media make grim reading.
They reveal that three weeks after Soviet forces arrived in Afghanistan at the request of
the Afghan government in Kabul, struggling to deal with an insurgency that had broken out in
the countryside, the Thatcher government was planning to supply military aid to the "
Islamic resistance ." A confidential government memo provides a chilling insight into
the insanity that passed for official policy: " We trust the Western leaders are prepared
for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan
rebellion were to succeed. "
It will be recalled that out of the ensuing collapse of Afghanistan emerged the Taliban,
under whose rule the country was turned into a vast militant jihadist school and training camp.
Many of the most notorious Islamist terrorists began their careers there, fighting the Soviets
and then later broadening out their activities to other parts of the region and wider world. In
this regard, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda loom large.
Other notorious names from the world of Salafi-jihadism for whom Afghanistan proved
indispensable include the Jordanian Abu al-Zarqawi, who founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during
the US-UK occupation, an organization that would over time morph into ISIS.
Abdelhakim Belhaj and other Libyan Islamists cut their jihadist teeth in Afghanistan in the
1980s. Returning to Libya, they formed the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group (LIFG) in the eastern city of Benghazi. Though the group may have been
disbanded in 2010, having failed to topple Gaddafi despite repeated attempts to assassinate the
Libyan leader with, it's been
claimed , the support of Britain's MI6, former members of the LIFG, including Belhaj, were
important actors in the 2011 Libyan uprising.
By way of a reminder, the uprising in Libya started in Benghazi and would not have succeeded
without the air support it received from NATO. Britain's then prime minister, David Cameron,
was key in pushing for that air support and the sanction of the UN under the auspices of
Security Council Resolution 1973. Though protecting civilians was central in wording of this
UNSC resolution, it was shamefully distorted to justify regime change, culminating in Gaddafi's
murder by the 'rebels.'
Staying with the LIFG, in the wake of the Manchester suicide-bomb attack in May 2017, which
left 23 people dead and 500 injured, the fact that the bomber, a young Libyan by the name of
Salman Abedi, was the son of a former member of the LIFG, did not receive anything like the
media attention it should have at the time.
Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong
evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of
Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was
Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed
to return to the UK thereafter.
This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so
many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part
in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has
veered between the ludicrous and the reckless.
Emblematic of the former was ex-prime minister David Cameron's
claim , which he made during a 2015 Commons debate over whether the Royal Air Force should
engage in air strikes against ISIS in Syria, that fighting as part of the Syrian were 70,000
moderates.
As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's
recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with
the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government
forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only
beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS
(whom it was later
reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra
and Jaysh al-Islam.
The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in
Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its
allies with Russian support.
Given the deep and longstanding ties between London and Riyadh; given the fact,
reported towards the end of 2017, that British military personnel were embedded in a
training role with Saudi forces in Yemen; given the news that a British special forces sergeant was
killed in northern Syria at the end of March this year while embedded with the Kurds, revealing
for the first time that British troops were operating in the country on the ground –
given all that, the question of who else British special forces and military personnel may be
embedded with in Syria is legitimate.
In the context of the British state's long and sordid history when it comes to riding the
back of radical Islam in pursuit of its strategic objectives, readers will doubtless draw their
own conclusions.
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently
working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on
Twitter @JohnWight1
"Philip May, husband of the UK prime minister, works for a company that is the largest
shareholder in arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, whose share price has soared since the recent
airstrikes in Syria.
The company, Capital Group, is also the second-largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin -- a US
military arms firm that supplies weapons systems, aircraft and logistical support. Its shares
have also rocketed since the missile strikes last week. . . ."
We have got it: Philip Owen believes religiously in the words of Theresa May, Boris
Johnson, and Gavin Willaimson. And, of course, Blair is a paragon of honesty for Philip
Owen.
What are you doing here, on the Unz Review? -- This is not a ziocon stink-tank source of
(dis)information, and this is not the ziocons-controlled MSM's presstitutes' haven.
You make yourself ridiculous by parroting the MSM "wisdom." Your frustration over the
impending defeat of "moderate" terrorists in Syria affects your reason and amplifies your
rabid hatred of Russia. Don't expect any sympathy for your "victimhood" on this site.
"Porton Down is just one of the Pentagon-funded military laboratories in 25 countries
across the world, where the US Army produces and tests man-made viruses, bacteria and toxins
in direct violation of the UN convention . These US bio-laboratories are funded by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program–
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union
countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
The Pentagon-funded military facilities are not under the direct control of the host state as
the US military and civilian personnel is working under diplomatic cover. The local
governments are prohibited from public disclosure of sensitive information about the foreign
military program running on their own territory."
– All statements in this article are sourced, unlike the pronouncement of the miserable
puppets Blair, May, Johnson, and Willaimson.
Looks like people were bombed and the shelter became full of dust and smoke. That led to some suffocations. Later this was
played as chemical attack.
The scenario is classic. Put artillery near residential houses and mercilessly shell residential building on government
side killing civilians. Wait for return fire which produce its own set of victims. Stage the false flag operation based on
return fire victims and the fact that civilians suffered.
Thanks
for this video. I have had a gut-full of the west and it's lies to take over countries in the Middle East. It's making me sick. What's
happening on a daily basis to the people of Palestine and Syria are war crimes, pure and simple.
The country I live in, Australia,
is not on the side of the good guys. We were not on the right side in Libya and Iraq either. I'm so sick of this shit. This is all
so the US and their creepy allies, including the head-choppin' Saudis, can put a pipeline through Syria to Europe to compete with
Russia and so they can use Syria as a jumping off point to invade Iran. Poor Iran.
The CIA threw out their Democratically elected
leader and installed a Dictator who they kept in place for 48 years, using the Shah's brutal secret police. The US hates the Iranians
for chucking the puppet out. Iran had every right to do so. God knows how they must feel being under constant threat. Israel have
been assassinating their citizens for years and launched the Stuxnet virus (with help from the US) to attack their infrastructure,
accidentally infecting the world, including Australia at the time. Thanks to them, every group in the world now has the code for
that virus. They modified the code and released it again behind Obama's back.
Israel's illegal nukes can't reach Iran but they will
definitely use them against Iran if they can get into Syria to use it as a base for attack. Then what happens to the world? Israel
have demonstrated clearly, their disinterest in Human Rights. The only people on the planet they care about are Israelis. Damn Israel
and damn the US. Macron is a wanna-be Napoleon and Theresa May is Thatcher- Lite. Both of them are sucking on the tail-pipe of that
clown, Trump and are keeping the world in a state of perpetual war. Hands off Syria, wankers!
Aside from this video, there is now overwhelming evidence confirming that this was yet another false flag chemical attack
designed to demonise Assad. This isn't the first time. Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, the Balkans - all suffered a similar fate
designed to hoodwink the public in supporting war and resource grab.
it was only a couple of years ago that Assad and Russia were subjected to the same scenario and proven to be utterly false.
How long must we swallow these crimes? History is replete with the same state-sponsored crimes against populations. Governments
are not acting in our best interests and never have.
Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for people to believe the utter bullshit spread around the mainstream media which excels
in poor journalism and is determined to push this disgusting propaganda on behalf of their respective governments and intel agencies.
Until the public is prepared to comprehend that such false flag attacks are a long used formula by US-NATO for carving up the
Middle East then it will continue with impunity. I hope everyone shares this video on social media in order to counter lazy thinking
and the obvious lies that characterize what passes for news.
Theresa May's
decision to authorise British military action over the skies of Syria by royal prerogative
rather than obtaining the backing of parliament was the wrong thing to do. Even if the prime
minister thinks it was done for the right reasons. It was wrong because the government's plans
should have been articulated so that MPs could have had a chance to endorse – or reject
– a motion to bomb Bashar al-Assad's weapons factories. It was wrong because there was no
emergency – an exception used when after a debate MPs retrospectively endorsed action
against Muammar Gaddafi's
Libya . It was wrong because only prime ministers can recall parliament – and there
was time to do so. It was wrong because decisions about how to police the unlawful use of
weapons of mass destructive terror in Syria turn upon judgment rather than available facts.
Parliament is the best place to assess whether the use of military force serves the overall
interests of a nation in such cases. This is especially true of a government without a majority
of its own. Jeremy Corbyn's resurrection of an old idea for a
war powers act , which would force the PM not to authorise the active and large-scale
deployment of British forces overseas without the approval of the House of Commons, ought not
to be dismissed.
But it should be accompanied by a wider recognition that the days of self-regulation of
cabinet government are over. Observing the parliamentary convention would be better than
creating an act where fractious disagreements over the precise nature of the circumstances in
which the law is to be applied – especially in a situation as fluid and volatile as war
– prevail.
PavewayIV thanks, as always I appreciate your thorough analysis.
...and in quantities that would have absolutely killed the Skripals given what was still
there after two weeks...
Indeed, and if A-234 is as strong as reported, it's likely any traces around the Skripals
would have killed the first responders too.
No doubt related to Lavrov's disclosure: this morning (and yesterday in the Sunday Times)
nearly every national UK paper is running a front page version of this story: "Russia
launches cyber war on UK with 'dirty tricks' campaign as PM to face Commons over Syria
strikes" (taken from The Daily Telegraph). This meme is so widespread (BBC Radio 4 also)
that, in itself, it looks like a co-ordinated attempt at scaremongering and
misinformation.
It's designed to make people think that anything they read online that is contrary to the
official FUKUS narrative about Russia/Syria can be given the term 'dirty trick' and
dismissed. And by conflating the Skripal story with Syria (remember the messages about
'package delivered' picked up by '4-Eyes' in Cypress?) then anything Russia says about the
Skripal affair is suspect and "not worthy of your consideration, dear reader".
I see that
The Sun newspaper is now running with this news in it's online version:
RUSSIA and Syria have blocked chemical inspectors from investigating the site of a brutal
chemical attack in Douma, Syria, reports claim.
Russia may even have compromised the site of the April 7 gas attack, according to Ahmet
Uzumcu, Director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
"It's our concern they may have tampered with it to thwart the fact finding
investigation," Mr Uzumcu is quoted as saying by NBC's Bill Neely.
Also see yesterday's
important report by Elijah J Magnier. Ties stuff together.
"... Did Spiez also do a DNA identification to ensure the TRACE metabolized samples actually came from the Skirpals, with no other DNA/chemical indicators which might indicate purposeful contamination or reformulation? Where did the "virgin" samples come from? The doorknob the Skirpals had not touched for longer than it takes for BZ to show symptoms? The chain of custody for all these samples should be 100% airtight, or all analysis is fatally flawed. ..."
"... This still reeks of a Mossad attack/disinfo operation, there are simply too many "flaws" in this to be unintentional. ..."
"... It is not only the current a Director-General who is a NATO-man, the PR women of OPCW was also on NATO payroll. Almost all international bodies are revolving doors for the Western paid personnel. Nobody does a truly honest job if they want the next appointment and advancement. Does anybody still remember the Brazilian Sergio de Mello? He revolved till he got blown up in Iraq. ..."
"... Ok. Ahmed Üzümcü is a former nato representative. This is interesting. What about the rest of the OPCW people? What about the OPCW teams inspecting Douma? Have they any non poodle nationality members? Does anybody know that? ..."
"... I can confirm that the chain of custody was 100% watertight, no worries there. Custody was 100% under iFUKUS control from the moment of contamination of the victims/environment until the completion of all tests and the publication of final reports. That is why the samples were spiked with fresh A-234. ..."
"... During a brief moment when I was viewing CNN yesterday (Alex Witt was playing bad cop most of the time, making sure Russia was suitably demeaned and excoriated for its evil ways) --but, iirc and I may not have done*, someone asked why the FUKUS would endanger people by blowing up locations the US stated they absolutely KNEW held chemical weapons and precursors. The reply was that the Pentagon was certain that since the locations were not in heavily populated areas that the breezes would disperse the poisons safely. ..."
"... The UN has been fully weoponized by the US and it's sock puppet partners in the west. The western powers completely ignore the UN charter while demanding absolute power through the UNSC. It is time for both Russia and China to leave the UN which will lead to a cascade of other countries leaving. It will also end any lingering belief in the legitimacy of the UN. ..."
"... Re: why hospital workers and others have not said anything about the Skripals' situation in a long time, it's very likely everyone, including patients and witnesses from Salisbury have been made to sign nondisclosure agreements. At least that's what happens in Brit series shown on Masterpiece Theatre. ..."
"... Also, DS Nick Bailey may have been sent to the house to get him exposed to whatever the chem agent was, part of being a way to draw attention away from the main site of exposure? BZ may explain the rather interesting description Bailey's written statement included: this line, and only this one, which described any physical or mental reactions he felt from his ordeal: ..."
"... Indeed, and if A-234 is as strong as reported, it's likely any traces around the Skripals would have killed the first responders too. ..."
"... Also see yesterday's important report by Elijah J Magnier. Ties stuff together. Folks, in seeking out and highlighting the truth we going to have our work cut out for us here! [See "have your work cut out (for you)" ..."
"... This is one of the few if only 'miracle recovery' situations in which the victims did not sit down for interviews. I imagine once they have been groomed enough they will sit down for an interview with a trusted news organization. ..."
"... The Spiez lab is a NATO lab. Even though Switzerland is "neutral", it is an associate member of NATO under the NATO Peace Partnership. Spiez has been involved in serious falsifications of analysis results for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s work on the use of uranium and depleted uranium weapons. ..."
"... In my opinion, the release of the real report to the Russians was the work of a whistle-blower, for the Spiez lab has highly trained people who take great pride in the generally impeccable quality of the lab's work and its repuration for such. Many of them would have been appalled that their lab was party to some sort of deception. ..."
"... Lavrov was right then, and he's right now. The "Joint Investigation Team" is actually "The Fix Is In Team". The official title is just for show, to make infoganda that impresses the ignorant, complacent, and submissive. It's exactly like the Big Lie that "17 intelligence agencies separately concluded that Russians meddled in US elections". ..."
Were the Skripals 'Buzzed', 'Novi-shocked' Or Neither? - May Has Some 'Splaining' To
Do
The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, threw a bombshell at the
British assertions that the collapse of the British secret agent Sergej Skripal and his
daughter Yulia on March 4 in Salisbury was caused by a 'Novichok' nerve agent 'of a type
developed by Russia'. (See our older pieces, linked below, for a detailed documentation of the
case.)
The Skripal poisoning happened on March 4.
Eye witnesses described the Skripals as disoriented and probably hallucinating. The
emergency personal suspected Fentanyl influence.
A few days later the British government claimed that the Skripals had been affected by a
chemical agent from the 'Novichok' series which they attributed to Russia. It insinuated that
the Skripals might die soon.
A doctor of the emergency center at the Salisbury District Hospital publicly asserted
that none of its patients was victim of a 'nerve agent'.
On March 14, after much pressure from Russia, Britain finally invited the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to analyze the blood of the victims and to
take environmental samples.
The OPCW arrived on March 19 and took specimen on the following days. It also received a
share of the samples taken earlier by the British chemical weapon laboratory in Porton Down,
which is only some 10 miles away from Salisbury.
The OPCW split the various samples it had in a certified laboratory in the Netherlands
and then distributed them to several other certified laboratories for analysis.
One of those laboratories was the highly regarded Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland which
is part of the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and fully certified.
On April 12 the OPCW
published a public version of the result of the analyses it had received from its
laboratories.
A more extensive confidential version was given to the state members that make up the
OPCW.
During a public speech
yesterday Lavrov stated of the OPCW report:
[A] detailed and fairly substantial confidential version was distributed to the OPCW members
only. In that report, in accordance with the OPCW way of conduct, the chemical composition of
the agent presented by the British was confirmed, and the analysis of samples, as the report
states, was taken by the OPCW experts themselves. It contains no names, Novichok or any
other. The report only gives the chemical formula, which, according to our experts, points to
an agent that had been developed in many countries and does not present any particular
secret.
After receiving that report Russia was tipped off by the Spiez Laboratory or someone else
that the OPCW report did not include the full results of its analysis.
According to Lavrov this is what the Spiez Laboratory originally sent to the OPCW:
"Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its
precursor which are second category chemical weapons. BZ is a nerve toxic agent, which
temporarily disables a person. The psycho toxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes
after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in
the armies of the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither
designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type
A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state and also products of its degradation. "
The "presence of type A-234 nerve agent", an agent of the so called 'Novichok' series, in
its "virgin state", or as the OPCW stated in "high purity", points to later addition to the
sample. The 'Novichok' agents are not stable. They tend to fall rapidly apart. Their presence
in "virgin state" in a sample which was taken 15 days after the Skripal incident happened is
inexplicable. A scientist of the former Russian chemical weapon program who worked with similar
agents, Leonid Rink, says that
if the Skripals had really been exposed to such high purity A-234 nerve agent, they would be
dead.
The whole case, the symptoms shown by the Skripals and their recuperation, makes way more
sense if they were 'buzzed', i.e. poisoned with the BZ hallucinogenic agent, than if they were
'novi-shocked' with a highly toxic nerve agent.
The Spiez Laboratory responded by not denying Lavrov's
claims:
Spiez Laboratory @SpiezLab - 19:49 UTC - 14 Apr 2018
Only OPCW can comment this assertion. But we can repeat what we stated 10 days ago: We
have no doubt that Porton Down has identified Novichock. PD - like Spiez - is a designated
lab of the OPCW. The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings.
#Skipal
Science Direct has
several excerpts of reports about BZ. The basics:
Agent 15 is also called compound 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, BZ, or "Buzz." It is a powerful
chemical warfare agent. As one of the most potent psychoactive chemical agents, only a small
amount of BZ is needed to produce complete incapacitation. When used as an aerosol, BZ is
absorbed through the respiratory system (it has no odor). It can also be absorbed through the
skin or the digestive system. It takes approximately 1 h for BZ to take effect, and the
symptoms of exposure include confusion, tremors, stupor, hallucinations, and coma that can
last for more than 2 days.
BZ is a psycho agent 25 times stronger than LSD. It was developed by the U.S. military as an
incapacitating agent. At least 50 tons were produced and filled
into weapon delivery systems. It was allegedly
tested on U.S. soldiers in Vietnam:
Working with the CIA the Department of Defense gave hallucinogenic drugs to thousands of
"volunteer" soldiers in the 1950's and 1960's. In addition to LSD, the Army also tested
quinuclidinyl benzilate, a hallucinogen code-named BZ. Many of these tests were conducted
under the so-called MKULTRA program, established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese
advances in brainwashing techniques. Between 1953 and 1964, the program consisted of 149
projects involving drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects. Although many
human subjects were not informed or protected, Dr. Gottlieb defended those actions by stating
"...harsh as it may seem in retrospect, it was felt that in an issue where national survival
might be concerned, such a procedure and such a risk was a reasonable one to take."
This is what the military tried to achieve with BZ and other psycho agents.
BZ (and LSD) turned out to be impractical as battlefield weapons.
According to British parliament
records BZ was also produced and tested, allegedly on unknowing civilians , by the
British chemical weapon laboratory Porton Down.
The Russian Foreign Minister asserts
that the OPCW suppressed the details of the Spiez Laboratory report:
Nothing is said whatsoever about a BZ agent in the final report that the OPCW experts
presented to its Executive Council. In this connection we address the OPCW a question about
why the information, that I have just read out loud and which reflects the findings of the
specialists from the city of Spiez, was withheld altogether in the final document. If the
OPCW would reject and deny the very fact that the Spiez laboratory was engaged, it will be
very interesting to listen to their explanations.
The current Director-General of the OPCW is the Turkish carrier diplomat Ahmed
Üzümcü who earlier served as the Turkish Permanent Representative to
NATO.
I have no theory how the BZ or the A-234 made it into the OPCW samples or if the Skripals
were really influenced by either of these poisons or are victims of simple shellfish poisoning.
Your guess is a good as mine.
But the story the British government has so far told is full of holes and discrepancies and
makes absolutely no sense at all. The suppression of the Spiez Laboratory report by the OPCW is
a serious breach of its procedures.
The British Prime Minister Theresa May, and the OPCW, have some 'splainin' to do.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the Skripal case:
Is there any reason to call for investigation when you have corrupt organs like OPCW that
are as biased as any other western statehood on Russia? Russia working in 110% and get like
5% back if lucky.
Charles M
After years of hatred against Russia, WW3 seems pretty logical for the same brainwashed
people that type the propaganda and those who reads it. Daily. This racism sooner or later
leads to war, and extermination.
A possible explanation for the apparent divergences between the OPCW report and the Russian
claims of what the Swiss lab found:
1. The UK requests Porton Down to confirm the presence of A-234 (motivated no doubt by its
"secret intelligence" that the Russians for 10 years had been building up a "small stockpile"
for such purposes).
2. Porton Down confirms the presence of A-234. Whether or not it carried out additional
tests to determine the presence of other possible toxic agents is uncertain.
3. The UK refuses to provide sample(s) to Russia, arguing that the "exchange of
information and consultations" called for by Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention
does not mean that they need to provide evidence to the "guilty party".
4. After much prodding by the Russians, the UK belatedly agrees to request "technical
assistance" from the OPCW to confirm its findings. The precise form this request took is
confidential, but one might surmise that it would have been: Please confirm the presence of
the toxic substance A-234 which we have identified in the samples (with the understood
message "no need to waste time and resources looking for other toxic substances").
5. As per its standard protocol, the OPCW sent out the samples to various "partner"
laboratories, of which one was the Spiez laboratory in Switzerland, which is the government
"ABC" lab (atomic, biological, chemical). They are asked to confirm (only) the presence of
A-234.
6. For an unknown reason, the Spiez Laboratory exceeds its mandate and not only confirms
the presence of A-234 but also traces of 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate, better known by its NATO
code name BZ. The Spiez Laboratory sends its report to the OPCW.
7. The OPCW issues 2 reports (one private, the other confidential) on 12 April. In
response to the specific request made by the UK, the OPCW truthfully confirms that the "toxic
chemical identified by the United Kingdom" was indeed A-234. The formula for this "toxic
chemical" was (apparently) provided in the confidential report.
8.The OPCW also provides the additional information that "this toxic chemical [i.e. A-234]
was of high purity". And for those without the necessary scientific background to digest this
statement, it helpfully adds that this technical conclusion was based on " the almost
complete absence of impurities".
9. As the OPCW had not been asked to confirm the presence of any toxic chemical other than
A-234, it naturally did not take into account the superfluous discovery by the Spiez
Laboratory of traces of BZ.
10. The Russians obtain access to the Spiez Laboratory report -- from a "whistleblower" at
the lab or the OPCW, or by "hacking".
"The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings." !!! I think
they are saying "The standards in verification are so rigid that you can trust our findings"
(i.e. BZ as well as A-234 in virgin *and* (!) degradation* stage. See also my comments to
your previous post (towards the end of the list of comments).
I believe you got the "virgin" state wrong. What this refers to is the state of the substance
*before* drug metabolism, i.e. before the substance reacts to any great degree chemically
within the body and "degrades". Spiez found A-234 prior to metabolism (virgin) and after
metabolism (degradation) which might point to two separate points in time when these
substances started reacting with chemicals within the body (yes, lastly, it all comes down to
chemistry). Drug metabolism is why drug effects last only a limited time. When the substance
is metabolized (degraded) its specific effects disappear. Here is the Wikipedia entry which
is sufficient to give a general impression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_metabolism
US and UK media will unlikely report it now, they are too busy driving the war machine,
however the drip drip of evidence coupled with increasing memories of the Iraq dodgy dossier
will eventually break through.
Also, thank you for this vital information: "The current Director-General of the OPCW is the
Turkish carrier diplomat Ahmed Üzümcü who earlier served as the Turkish
Permanent Representative to NATO." This, to me, this goes a long way understanding recent
reports of the OPCW DG regarding the 2 labs that were bombed. My, the puzzle is coming
together!
I am sorry for the many comments but it is not possible to edit comments or reply to them...
"virgin state" is not the same as "high purity". The OPCW report does not echo the Spiez
results when talking about "high purity" but London, just in more sophisticated way (i.e. not
saying "military grade").
Did Spiez also do a DNA identification to ensure the TRACE metabolized samples actually came
from the Skirpals, with no other DNA/chemical indicators which might indicate purposeful
contamination or reformulation? Where did the "virgin" samples come from? The doorknob the Skirpals had not touched for
longer than it takes for BZ to show symptoms? The chain of custody for all these samples should be 100% airtight, or all analysis is
fatally flawed.
This still reeks of a Mossad attack/disinfo operation, there are simply too many "flaws"
in this to be unintentional.
We don't know if OPCW found A-234 in the samples they took, or only in the ones that they
were given by the British, which could easily have been tampered with.
(Note that there are numerous posts pertaining to this subject on the previous
thread.)
It is not only the current a Director-General who is a NATO-man, the PR women of OPCW was
also on NATO payroll. Almost all international bodies are revolving doors for the Western
paid personnel. Nobody does a truly honest job if they want the next appointment and
advancement. Does anybody still remember the Brazilian Sergio de Mello? He revolved till he
got blown up in Iraq.
Ultimately, it all comes down to unlimited printing of US$, used as confetti or in pallet
loads to pay for corruption of everything. Through US$ petro and reserve currency status the
nations are paying to be taken advantage off by global bankers of US, UK and Israel,
including Russia and China. But do not tell me that organisations in the West are corrupt.
Please show me just one which is not.
I wondered why the Skripals were said to be suffering from "hallucinations". I assumed that
really meant they were just saying things that Airstrip One didn't like during their
recovery, but apparently there was a pharmacological reason!
The 30-60 minute time frame for BZ also switches the focus back to the restaurant
(Zizzi's?), and whoever they may have met there. Weren't the original reports that Sergei was
acting erratically (hallucinations?) by the time he left the restaurant?
If the Swiss laboratory got the facts right as presented by Lavrov, many things come out
quite naturally, it seems to me. Here is my guess:
1. the Skripals were poisoned with this BZ stuff, not Novichok.
Q1: Who did it?
2. Novichok was added to the blood probes that were analysed by Porton Down and the OPCW
labs, after these probes were taken. The Skripals never came into contact with Novichok
themselves.
Q2: Who did the manipulation?
3. This means that in fact nobody wanted to kill the Skripals. It was a PR stunt from the
very start in order to demonize Russia. Whether the Skripals conspire or not, is an open and
quite irrelevant question.
Q3: Who planned it?
4. The answer to Q3 can only lie in Britain: It was the British intelligence services -
presumably under government supervision. Who else would have opportunity, motive and benefit
of all this?
5. This also answers the question about the policeman who also showed symptoms: he was the
guy who "poisoned" the Skripals with BX. He might just not have been careful enough, which is
understanable if he is told that the stuff is not so dangerous. This answers Q1.
6. With respect to Q2, I very much hope that this was done in Porton Down, using their own
samples of Novichok, because otherwise this dangerous stuff must have been transported from
somewhere, risking, for instance, killing plane passengers etc., if something went wrong. I
don't think that secret service people are willing to risk their own and the lifes of
innocent people just for such a PR stunt. They surely reduced risks to anybody to a
minimum.
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 15, 2018 10:38:12 AM |
16
@Posted by: Madeira | Apr 15, 2018 9:45:53 AM | 3
Entirely implausible?
Totally implausible, since, in sight of the development of events which have derived from
the unsubstantiated accusation against Russia, it sounds quite weird that the OPCW, a
supposedly independent international organism, would have ommited such a determinant
information for, not only discharge the Russians of responsability, but also to apply a
reasonable doubt about the responsability of many other states which right now have got
dividens from the Skripal hoax by using it as an alibi to strikes Syria with missiles and
remain illegaly in the country indefinitely.
I find totally weird as well that the OPCW did not disclose the totality of the analisis
result, in spite of what the UK could have requested concretely from them, since they are not
there to only hear the demands of the UK, but also from Russia, as part charged and also a
memeber and sucriptor of the OPCW charter, the more when this country has been blamed without
the opportune investigation of the facts.
As historical facts have already proven, the long hand of Bolton in the OPCW is obvious,
and we have that he just landed in the DoS....That every European official is blackmailed by
the US as a norm, so that favouring its geopolitial goals, even at the price of harming most
the countries of the Euroepan officials blackmailed, is already of public domain as
well....
And the answer to "who did it?" points squarely at Mossad. The UK spies/gov't were obviously
caught flat-footed, had no idea it was going to happen, no internal script on which lies they
had hard info about, relying on external "trusted sources".
Ok. Ahmed Üzümcü is a former nato representative. This is interesting. What
about the rest of the OPCW people? What about the OPCW teams inspecting Douma? Have they any
non poodle nationality members? Does anybody know that?
"And the answer to "who did it?" points squarely at Mossad."
If they were poisoned with Novichoks from the beginning then I could see Mossad. But if
this BZ toxin then it MI6 because they would want to ensure the Skripals, their agents, and
any civilians didn't die and only they would be able to uphold the PR narrative that it was
Novichoks by controlling the samples and where they are tested.
One group that could testify on Lavrov's claim is the personnel of Salisbury Hospital. Dr.
Blanshard said that they consulted with experts in the whole world to improve the recovery of
Julia Skripal. Certainly they can say if it was a BZ treatment or a Novichok treatment.
The Novichok narrative was on designed to hold up for a short time. The Ghouta CW attack
should have occurred at peak Novichok, drawing attention away, but was waylaid.
A-234 - there are many highly toxic chemical compounds but only few are developed as Chemical
weapons. Many of the compounds have properties that make them unsuitable for deployment as
CW's. A-234 compound and perhaps all of the compounds in the Russian scientists book may well
have properties that make it/them unsuited to either assassination or as a WMD so a
substitute was used.
Magnier has a new piece out which helps tie in the larger play that the Novichok narrative
was part of.
The larger play failed and now the Russians are hunting down the Brits and taking apart their
narrative.
The picture of the Skripals was taken in the restaurant on that same day? or not, with the
reflection in the mirror. With the new time frame for onset of drug reaction doesn't he
become a "person of interest"?, this strange guy in the mirror?
The official UK government's position was set out when it applied to the court in order to
allow the taking of blood samples for the OPCW:
"The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely
related agent."
If it had been a "Novichock class nerve agent" they would have left it at that, so we can
reasonably conclude that it was a "closely related agent".
But closely related in what sense, nobody is saying. This is a typical lawyer's
manipulation of language and the criteria of the comparison are deliberately omitted. People
naturally assume that it is closely related in a chemical sense but these are lawyers and the
the meaning of the words is whatever they want it to be.
So how could a so-called "Novichok" be "closely related" to BZ? Well, one plausible
explanation could be that the lawyers are actually saying they're both chemical agents
designed to incapcitate. The phrase "closely related to" doesn't have to be anything to do
with the chemical composition. Nobody lied but their "truth" is designed to give a completely
misleading impression. That's lawyers for you.
It also allows the OPCW to agree with the UK government's position without actually
lying.
It is said that 11 UK/US officers 'handlers' of the moderate terrorists have been captured in
a tunnel in East Ghouta (hmm, mayby). However, the US/UK bellicose rhetoric,two false flags
and a Cruise missile show seem to fit the picture. Russian FM Lavrov says the poison used in Salisbury on the Skripal's was not a Novachoc (VX
type - fatal) but the toxin BZ (narcotic, hallucinogenic) and it is definitely US/UK
(Hoffman-LaRosch developed in 1951).
A consultant (Davis) at the Salisbury hospital wrote a letter to the Times saying, "there
are no patients suffering from nerve agents and only 3 who are poisoned". (fact, I saw the
Times letter).
Wikipedia describes the effects of BZ and they exactly fit the delayed, narcotic
hallucinogenic effect of BX (30mins to 4 hours post exposure). The physiological effects of
BZ and VX differ markedly, which is how doctor Davis knew – he is 8 miles from the
Porton Down chemical warfare plant and was therefore 'clued up'. Patients have recovered and
VX etc. kills, stops muscle action, not a poison as such).
In the Independent (today, Comments under the Lavrov story, Sunday 15th) a bathroom fitter
(Ollie Field) says he saw the Skripal's on the bench and thought they were 'whacked out' on
heroin.
Douma False Flag.
The Russians have in their pocket (filmed I believe) a notable at the Douma (only) hospital
(can't remember who) that has described the White Helmets filming as; a bomb destroyed the
top floor of the hospital and the film crew moved bodies and kids to the basement and doused
them with hoses and sprayed them with Ventolin (asthma inhaler – blue). This provided
the film used to justify the Cruise missile attack Fri 13th. 2018.
The Russians have rumbled the Douma false flag and the OECD chemical weapons investigators
are on their way to the Douma hospital (basement) to find no chemicals, they report in a few
weeks.
Lavrov has said that the British ordered the Douma rebels to make a chemical warfare White
Helmets type movie fast, in desperation, since the Russians/SAA forces attack was moving fast
and they could obtain support bombing. The whole of East Ghouta has been taken by the
SAA.
A decent video exposure on TV, or even a simple web search, completely debunks the 'White
Helmets' that filmed the fake gas attack in the Douma hospital in East Ghouta. Re. my earlier
email.
May didn't wait (in panic) for parliament approval and went ahead with military action (8 of
our missiles wasted at £6.3M).
The 11 'handlers' (said to be officers) are not in the hands of the Russians (who have
swopped theirs for ours previously) but are held by the SAA and could well have have spilled
the beans. If they are paraded (filmed) and spill the beans things will get ugly for May et
al.
It is an old photo. I have seen photos of the inside of Salisbury Zizzi which has a very
different interior decoration style. Zizzi's also do not have tableclothes and set tables.
Empty table are always bare.
The chain of custody for all these samples should be 100% airtight, or all analysis is
fatally flawed. Posted by: A P | Apr 15, 2018 10:23:09 AM | 11
I can confirm that the chain of custody was 100% watertight, no worries there. Custody was
100% under iFUKUS control from the moment of contamination of the victims/environment until
the completion of all tests and the publication of final reports. That is why the samples
were spiked with fresh A-234.
Peter AU 1 33
The video of the two medics at the Douma hospital you can find at Voltaire Network, but they
are in French. Hope you can understand French?
The important part about the presence of unmetabolised A-234 in the samples is that it proves
incontrovertably that the analysis was faked implicate the UK's claims. (By 'analysis' here I
specifically mean the entire process from the taking of the samples up until the provision of
the final report; the existence of the leak from Spiez implies that one or more chemists were
doing their job honestly and therefore objected to the fabrications in the final published
reports - indeed there could have been many people involved who were acting entirely honestly
- but at some critical stage within the chain of custody the process was faked).
There are however two possibilities:
a) The samples taken by OPCW were deliberately spiked with a mixture of high purity virgin
A-234 with metabolic derivatives (and/or non-metabolic disintegration products from the
virgin A-234 since it is chemically not very stable??) AFTER the blood samples were taken
from the Skripals.
b) The Skripals were injected with A-234 shortly (probably very few minutes) before the OPCW
experts arrived to take the samples.
Lavrov's statement seems to imply that the blood samples contained both virgin i.e.
unreacted A-234, and metabolic by-products of A-234 (i.e. chemicals produced by A-234 as it
is broken down by the human body). The implications of that are very important - according to
one expert comment I read somewhere (I can't remember where), these metabolic by-products
would have to be in plausible proportions, which would be very difficult to mix in the
test-tube (that expert cited a sports doping case where the analyst spiked the sample with
pure un-metabilised doping drug from a laboratory sample, and was later convicted because he
got it wrong). Maybe these certified OPCW labs are capable of mixing virgin A-234 and
metabolic products in plausible proportions, but that sounds like "rocket science" to me,
i.e. it is a very serious endeavour in itself. That implies that possibility (b) has to be
taken seriously.
Even if the A-234 by-products were not metabolic by-products but simply the products of
disintegration of A-234 through intrisic chemical instability (i.e. without biological
activity) that would also have important implications - such faking would be vastly easier to
accomplish but (it seems to me) would imply gross negligence on the part of the analysts
unless the lack of METABOLIC by-products was spotted and explicitly drawn attention to as
evidence of faking. According to reports, A-234 is metabolised quite rapidly, so the
metabolic by-products should be produced very quickly and not much unreacted A-234 should
remain.
In a previous comment I have already asserted that the phone call to Viktoria Skripal was
faked from the British side by digitally altering the voice characteristics of another person
(i.e. not Yulia Skripal) - the British have this capability and I have personally experienced
it. To my mind the artificial police-managed statements allegedly made by Yulia Skripal, the
denial of visa to Viktoria etc imply that she was by that time already irreversably incabable
of making a statement by herself - i.e. either she was dead, or 'preserved' in a coma under
life support.
I also think that the BZ was more likely administered by aerosol in the park - quite
possibly by the mystery so-called "policeman" (actually from Porton Down or MI6?) - and the
restaurant may well have been a decoy, otherwise the response latency for Sergei and Yulia
would have been more divergent. That should be visible on cctv, but of course that will never
come out. If the BZ was weaponised as an aerosol it would be absorbed very quickly, and the
two victims would be affected at the same time.
* Disclaimer * - I am not an expert! Just an "armchair commenter". I hope "Old
Microbiologist" will respond, as he obviously has detailed experience in this field.
It's getting clear to me now. There are 1980's hold overs on both sides of the pond in the
CIA, MI6, and bureaucracies in both govts who believe that Trump / May are the new Reagan /
Thatcher, destined to destroy Russia a second time. Now all they need is another Pope.
BTW I liked Reagan and the Pope (he lived long enough to condemn the Iraq war). Reagan
knew how to keep the deep state in line but after we won the Cold War they took over the
amateurs starting with Clinton.
So the deep state is unleashing hell on earth because they want to finish off Russia to
achieve world domination.
During a brief moment when I was viewing CNN yesterday (Alex Witt was playing bad cop most of
the time, making sure Russia was suitably demeaned and excoriated for its evil ways) --but,
iirc and I may not have done*, someone asked why the FUKUS would endanger people by blowing
up locations the US stated they absolutely KNEW held chemical weapons and precursors. The
reply was that the Pentagon was certain that since the locations were not in heavily
populated areas that the breezes would disperse the poisons safely.
I somehow cannot believe anyone believes that, but, hey...true believers. Lies to get the
West unto yet another illegal war.
*Hhmmm, maybe I heard that in response to questioning at the Pentagon briefing.
On the little broadcast news I caught, mostly there was chest thumping that the West's
missiles so completely bested the Russian anti-missile equipment. Not a hair on their
chinny-chin-chins (OK, West's missiles don't have hairs, but they are telling fairy tales)
were even touched, according to the reporting based on Pentagon pronouncments.
The UN has been fully weoponized by the US and it's sock puppet partners in the west. The
western powers completely ignore the UN charter while demanding absolute power through the
UNSC. It is time for both Russia and China to leave the UN which will lead to a cascade of
other countries leaving. It will also end any lingering belief in the legitimacy of the UN.
Some thing like the UN is needed but like the League of Nations before it, the past due
date was long ago. It is time for a new organization to arise that takes into account the
fact that the vast majority of the world lives in Asia and acknowledges the complete
irrelevance of the General Assemble vs the power of the UNSC was a big mistake for the world
as it was intended to be by the US.
If Russia and China proposed an organization that would give India, Pakistan, Latin
America & Africa an actual stake in decisions as opposed to just being the victims as
they are now, and the rest of the world a say rather than just an arbitrary security council,
I think they would jump at it. With the vast majority of the world on board I think most of
the Western states would eventually join. The US would never deem to join any thing where
they don't have control. But they completely ignore the UN Charter & international law,
contribute fewer peace keepers than Canada and don't pay their bills any way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201480/
says the latency can amount to several hours so I wonder if it can be made to match with the
'door handle' theory {or is that more than a claim}.
"it is currently used as a pharmacological tool (a muscarinic antagonist known as QNB)"
So BZ is over 50 years old, commercially available, and it can point to hm, anyone. Not even
some bigger player with access to advanced laboratory.
Point well made. Although Russia and China have gone part way -- SCO, etc -- it may be the
moment to go big -- an alternative to the UN, along the lines you've described. This might
include the possibility of imposing tariffs on rogue states, as concerns the resolutions of
such groups as the alt-UN climate convention, chemical weapons conventions, and an alt-WTO
that can impose a financial transfer tax on all foreign exchange transactions so that the
organization can be financing, and not have to go begging to Hegemon. Neutral or rotating
sites (not NYC). etc. etc.
I will now be quoting what they sent to the OPCW in their report. You understand that this
is a translation from a foreign language but I will read it in Russian, quote: "Following
our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursor which
are second category chemical weapons. BZ is a nerve toxic agent, which temporarily disables
a person. The psycho toxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes after its use and
lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in the armies of
the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor
stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type A-234
nerve agent in its virgin state and also products of its degradation." End of quote.
I was under the impression OPCW Labs (and OPCW itself) were only empowered to discover and
reveal "if a chemical substance(s) was used and if so, what?" Isn't that why Porton Down has
steadfastly refused to say "Russian/made in Russia" re the Salisbury A-234?
Lavrov states he is reading in Russian something translated from another language. However
it seems unlikely that the sentences emboldened would cause any problems in translation?
Perhaps it's a little Lavrov 'embroidery' to see who bites and how they bite?
Re: why hospital workers and others have not said anything about the Skripals' situation in a
long time, it's very likely everyone, including patients and witnesses from Salisbury have
been made to sign nondisclosure agreements. At least that's what happens in Brit series shown
on Masterpiece Theatre.
Also, DS Nick Bailey may have been sent to the house to get him exposed to whatever the
chem agent was, part of being a way to draw attention away from the main site of exposure? BZ
may explain the rather interesting description Bailey's written statement included:
this line, and only this one, which described any physical or mental reactions he felt from
his ordeal:
I "People ask me how I am feeling - but there are really no words to explain how I feel
right now. Surreal is the word that keeps cropping up - and it really has been completely
surreal."
Obviously Russia was correct in the BZ claim, the response by OPCW is disgraceful -
apparently they are now in panic mode trying to come up with a explanation for BZ findings,
apparently you cant trust organs like this today, totally biased.
Also the series was only 10 episodes and supposed to end last year, it was then split into
2 5 episode chucks so the series could end this year, much closer in time and memory to the
Salisbury incident.
I read this chapter at another place last night and my head just swelled up with a song I
learned as a child in Canada and I rearranged and typed it in their comments.
"And Theresa May rolled her wheel barrow, through streets wide and narrow, crying cockles
and mussels alive, alive O."
The tune is perfect for the feelings that swept over me and the situation of a street fish
monger peddling her wares truthfully or not seems to capture the huge pickle she has put
herself into.
"I have no theory how the BZ or the A-234 made it into the OPCW samples or if the Skripals
were really influenced by either of these poisons or are victims of simple shellfish
poisoning. Your guess is a good as mine."
A-234 (Novichok) is an acetylcholine esterase inhibitor, that causes uncontrolled muscle
contraction, and hence vomiting and convulsions. BZ is a paralytic agent, like botulinus
toxin, that causes paralysis and, hence, in severe cases death by asphyxiation. Thus, A-234
and BZ are antagonists, meaning that one would be a logical thereapeutic treatment for
poisoning by the other. There is no mystery therefore that both would be found in the Skripal
blood samples. The question that remains unanswered is which was the poison an which the
prescribed therapeutic agent.
Using BZ would also explain why they keep Skripals out of any media - a simple question from
some journalist like "what did you feel" may lead to them mentioning hallucinations which
immediately throws Novichok bull out of the window.
While technically A-234 and BZ would be expected to cancel out each others' toxic effects,
at least to some extent, A-234 would never be used therapeutically, and I'm pretty sure BZ
also has no recognized medicinal uses (although it's a good experimental tool). I expect that
any physician administering them to humans would lose his or her license, at a very minimum.
In both cases, safer antidotes exist.
Carrie@49 - When the OPCW sends teams to Syria on Fact Finding missions, the teams are given
rather bizarre and restrictive mandates. The one you cite was from previous fact-finding
mission.
The Porton Down analysis confirmation (collecting samples and distributing to OPCW labs)
was in response to a technical assistance request by the UK delegation to the OPCW -
something all OPCW members are allowed to do. We only know in general about what UK asked,
not the specifics. The details of that request are unrelated to the mandate of the Fact
Finding teams you cited.
The exact request made by the UK delegation is confidential. We can only guess what they
asked by what they said in public. Likewise, we can only guess the details of those analysis
by what the UK, the OPCW and Spiez lab said publicly. The lab can say whatever they want to
the OPCW as part of their analysis. The OPCW has been usurped and is no longer impartial (my
opinion, not legal fact). They insulate uncomfortable findings from the public with their
bureaucracy and rules of confidentiality.
The OPCW members themselves could change that, but that would require a majority of the
192 members to agree on something. It's like expecting the government to un-corrupt itself
after it has been usurped. There's simply too much at stake for the smaller nations (foreign
aid, military assistance, lives of children in New York, etc.) to fix the OPCW machine.
Lavrov is saying there was a whistleblower who wanted to make known what was in the Spies
Lab report. Their motivation was because they knew the OPCW was (or already did) cover up the
BZ findings. Of course the OPCW shouldn't have covered that up from it's member states and
those member states should object and demand the full report, but they never will. And for
the exact same reasons they can't and will never fix the usurped machine itself.
What's most interesting is that, if the whistleblower/Lavrov claim about the Spiez Lab
report is true,
1) It's solid proof of sample spiking. That would be the impossibly pure, un-degraded
something-like-A-234 from blood, urine or tissue taken two weeks after the fact, and in
quantities that would have absolutely killed the Skripals given what was still there after
two weeks. Any reasonable lab would interpret that finding as such.
2) The BZ findings explain the Skripals initial condition, and implicate the US/UK/NATO
who developed and weaponized it. The USSR never had BZ weapons or worked with BZ - that was
the west.
Spiez Lab, to it's credit, knows exactly what kind of deception is going on. They
apparently had no intention of weasel-wording their analysis or impugning their lab's
credibility. IF they put those words in their analysis for the OPCW, then it was a kind of
"In your face, LIARS" jab. The lab's lawyers would have approved - don't drag Spiez
into your world domination schemes. The OPCW filtered that out in their public report, and
have the same dilemma as any government agency confronted with whistleblower claims.
In the unusual and rare event that the Spiez analysis ever sees the light of day, the OPCW
will be made to be the fall guy with much fanfare. Not the US or UK, who will just have to
wait to see the results of an independent investigation into the matter. Five years at least
- these things take time. For now, just deny something nobody is allowed to prove.
But things start to make sense when you think of all the things that have occurred in the
last few weeks.
The Russians warned of impending chemical weapons event in Syria, then the Skripals are
found. This makes me wonder. Like father, like daughter? Were they blackmailed or willing
participants? Was Yulia a mule for MI6 with her visit to her father as the cover for the
operation? Was she tasked with transporting chemical weapons on behalf a looming Syria
operation, of weapons produced at Porton Down? Having a Russian national manage to transit
the material via certain points internationally, MI-6/FBI/CIA can then use her own itinerary
to show how it originated from Russia. The same way Mueller and the FBI set up fake terrorist
plots so they could get public convictions for the plotters the FBI created.
So what went wrong? Maybe the precursors were stored incorrectly. Maybe they mixed in a
way that ended up not killing them. That's how they were able to "save" the Skripals in
hospital, because they could tell the ER exactly what the agent was. If Novichok is so
deadly, and since they didn't die, to me, that seems as plausible as anything else. I'm no
expert in chemistry, so I'm not even sure it's possible for the two of them to become ill in
this way.
Then, we had the Saudi Clown Prince all over Europe, and finally in Paris. We know MBS is
the main benefactor for Jaesh al-Islam. SA could have been the coordinator to make the pieces
fall into line. Getting Jaesh and the White Helmets ready to receive a gif from Porton Down.
Dump the chemical weapon in a place, get some bodies to film, then wait for international
teams to arrive to "discover" samples of A-234. The Jihadis in Syria have done this before in
2013.
One has to admit, if there was a gas attack in Syria, and it turned out to be A-234
Novichok, think of how that would have been such a bonanza for Trump, May, Macron, and the
Saudi Clown Prince! But if the Skripals ended up incapacitated, it could explain why the
scrambling of the staged international sh*tshow at the UN and the earnestness of the FUKUS
reaction in all this. In desperation, they went back to the barrel bomb gambit, a substitute
for what they had hoped to do, so then they can go straight into the airstrike.
Why do I think this? Makes sense that Yulia doesn't want to go back to Russia and why the
British/Yanks are keeping her incommunicado. Maybe the Kremlin wants here back, for something
more than just being a Russian national and why the MI-6/CIA won't let her go.
Speaking of which, it's possible the Russians, behind closed doors suspect this and played
their cards well. This might help to explain why the reaction by the Russians was so muted
for the strikes in Syria.
All of this is speculation, right up there with the thermite people, of course, but that's
what everyone is trading in right now, including Paris, London and Washington.
If we assume - for arguments sake, if nothing else - that Lavrov's information is accurate
then the Russians have played their hand in a masterly fashion.
After all, the only way Lavrov can have this information is if the Russians have an
intelligence asset in place.
But where, exactly?
Because of the manner in which this information is released nobody knows if that asset is
inside the Spiez labs (i.e. where the report originated) or at the OPCW (i.e. where the
report was received and then censored).
So this puts everyone in a very difficult position because they don't know how much more
information Lavrov has up his sleeve.
After all, if the source is at Spiez Labs then Lavrov is out of ammo, so to speak. The
OPCW can claim that the BZ information was not confirmed by the other two labs and,
therefore, it is right and proper that it be left out. Lavrov would be in no position to
dispute that even if it were a flat-out lie.
But if the source is inside the OPCW then Lavrov may well have all three lab reports, in
which case the OPCW would be falling into a trap of its own making if it tries to lie its way
out of this. Lavrov would be able to cut them to ribbons by carefully releasing more
info.
That, at least in my opinion, is why the Spiez is being so circumspect, and why the OPCW
is doing a very good impersonation of a rabbit caught in headlights i.e. until they know
where the source of this leak is they can't even begin to rough-up a cover-up.
It is interesting how the "very pure" stuff everybody agrees on is spun in different
ways. "Very pure" was interpreted as meaning "can only have been produced by a state". But thinking about it - of course it is unlikely to have been found "pure" in a sample
taken from the environment. Russian scientists including Mirzayanov seem to unite on not
possible to have been found if Novichok on 19th with rain etc.
2 labs had the samples taken from environment, 2 labs had blood samples.
Hardly anything will have been found in the blood samples.
Althouth some may have had to sign Non Disclosures, it is difficult to understand why MI5 would
even bother since undoubtedly many staff would refuse at from MI5's point of view totally
un-necessary since post the consultant's letter to the Times the Home Office announced that
any further leaks by staff would result in prosecution under the englander official secrets act .
This a
particularly nasty piece of legislation that is an act of parliament dating back to part 1 of
the 20th century euro war. Some people are asked to sign it but that is more about
intimidation than legality since it applies to all public sector employees, contractors and
consultants regardless.
I remember being made to sign it by HR ('personnel' in those days) after getting a telco
techie job as a kid in the bad old days when Aoteraoa public servants were bound by the kiwi
version (they now have the privacy act which is meant to be about freedom of information but
is actually used by every govt agency spokesperson to hide their mistakes regardless giving
out details of medical treatment is one of the big no-nos rightly so too, a nurse in Aotearoa
only just missed out on getting slotted up for a good spell when she told a student's family
at home in India that their daughter had dropped in to the public hospital where she worked
for a termination. The girl copped big damages by kiwi standards).
Anyway england, as soon as the Home Secretary mumbled about the OS Act everybody including
the media who can also be tossed into the slammer for the rest of their naturals for printing
something that is covered by the Act, shut right up. Most especially the original doctor.
PavewayIV thanks, as always I appreciate your thorough analysis.
...and in quantities that would have absolutely killed the Skripals given what was still
there after two weeks...
Indeed, and if A-234 is as strong as reported, it's likely any traces around the Skripals
would have killed the first responders too.
No doubt related to Lavrov's disclosure: this morning (and yesterday in the Sunday Times)
nearly every national UK paper is running a front page version of this story: "Russia
launches cyber war on UK with 'dirty tricks' campaign as PM to face Commons over Syria
strikes" (taken from The Daily Telegraph). This meme is so widespread (BBC Radio 4 also)
that, in itself, it looks like a co-ordinated attempt at scaremongering and
misinformation.
It's designed to make people think that anything they read online that is contrary to the
official FUKUS narrative about Russia/Syria can be given the term 'dirty trick' and
dismissed. And by conflating the Skripal story with Syria (remember the messages about
'package delivered' picked up by '4-Eyes' in Cypress?) then anything Russia says about the
Skripal affair is suspect and "not worthy of your consideration, dear reader".
I see that
The Sun newspaper is now running with this news in it's online version:
RUSSIA and Syria have blocked chemical inspectors from investigating the site of a brutal
chemical attack in Douma, Syria, reports claim.
Russia may even have compromised the site of the April 7 gas attack, according to Ahmet
Uzumcu, Director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
"It's our concern they may have tampered with it to thwart the fact finding
investigation," Mr Uzumcu is quoted as saying by NBC's Bill Neely.
Also see yesterday's
important report by Elijah J Magnier. Ties stuff together. Folks, in seeking out and highlighting the truth we going to have our work cut out for us
here! [See "have
your work cut out (for you)"
This is one of the few if only 'miracle recovery' situations in which the victims did not sit
down for interviews. I imagine once they have been groomed enough they will sit down for an
interview with a trusted news organization.
BZ is not a hallucinogenic compound. It is a nerve agent with an unusual high ratio of lethal
dose to symptomatic dose (~400:1). That means the key symptoms of nerve agent poisoning can
be induced by exposure to low levels of agent way below the levels needed to kill someone.
That would protect the attacker as well as not immediately killing the victims.
There was no audited chain of custody for the first samples so traces on Novichok could
have been introduced between the taking of the samples (presumably by a phlebotomist at the
hospital) and its arrival at Porton Down.
The only publicly announced CCTV footage (from a private camera) showed the Skripals en
route from Zizzis to the park bench where they were found. The footage also showed a blonde
haired women leaving the shop(?) hosting the private CCTV camera some minutes after the
Skripals and following the same route. There are claims that she appeared to be carrying a
face mask. She was listed as a person of interest by the local police, but there was no
follow-up once the presence of nerve agent was made public.
This was all before Bailey came down with symptoms. This poisoning was presumably an
unexpected complicating event for those running the false flag. From local media sources, it
appears that he drove himself to Salisbury hospital early Monday morning (5 March probably
before 10:00 am some 18 hours after the attack). The hospital entrance and his car were
subsequently sealed off and decontaminated. It would be interesting to know the temporal
relationship between his arrival and the knowledge that a nerve agent was used.
The false flaggers were then presented with a problem of explaining Bailey's delayed
symptoms. The explanation would have to exclude the possibility of him being poisoned at the
same time as the Skripals to avoid anyone regarding him as an eyewitness. An unidentified
police officer turned up at the Skripal's house (mentioned in local media) around 5pm on
Sunday shortly after the attack. The seems to have provided the false flaggers with a
plausible (to them) source of poisoning, namely the door handle.
How did Bailey actually become contaminated? He was described as an early emergency
services responder (local media). If he was first on the scene, one plausible explanation is
that he was exposed to low amounts of BZ aerosal as one of the Skripals vomitted in his
presence. We know from the nature of BZ that even low levels are capable of inducing
symptoms, probably slowly progressive at those exposure levels. Local media photos of the
hazmat crews show them putting a pile of sawdust/fine sand onto the ground adjacent to the
bench, then scooping it up and putting it into an impermeable container which was then sealed
for disposal. This supports the vomitting hypothesis, which was also observed by later
passers by.
My hypothesis for events: The Skripals were exposed to an aerosol spray of low dose BZ
sprayed into their faces by an unknown person (possibly the blonde woman) whilst sitting at
the bench. Bailey was unintentionally contaminated by a similar lower level aerosol of BZ as
he attended the vomitting Skripal. The desired story of pure Novichok poisoning could not be
explained unless Bailey received a higher dose at a later time from a source that the
Skripals were plausibly in contact with - hence the door handle hypothesis. The door handle
hypothesis would also allow the false flaggers to direct attention away from the possiblity
that the Skripals were attacked at the bench. The trail of the attacker (clearly part of the
false flag team) could then be closed off and covered up.
A-234 according to Mirzayanov and A-234 according to Hoenig have different structures.
Mirzayanov claims that a number of weaker agents developed as part of the Foliant program
were published in the open literature as organophosphate pesticides, in order to disguise the
secret nerve agent program as legitimate pesticide research. So, it was made to be
pesticides. And it can be produced as a number of different pesticides everywhere in the
world.
and From the resistance trench with love | Apr 15, 2018 10:38:12 AM | 16
The Spiez lab is a NATO lab. Even though Switzerland is "neutral", it is an associate
member of NATO under the NATO Peace Partnership. Spiez has been involved in serious falsifications of analysis results for the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s work on the use of uranium and depleted uranium
weapons.
E.g. the water samples that the UNEP took from missile craters in south Lebanon after the
Israeli assault in August 2006 revealed low enriched uranium, which is what myself and two
other independent researchers, Dai Williams and Dr Chris Busby, had found there. (Our samples
were analyzed at Harwell in the United Kingdom.) However, what was announced in the
preliminary report by the UNEP was NO radiation found.
We confronted the UNEP (Henrik Slotte, head of the Post-Conflict Intervention Unit, and
Mario Buger, the technical officer), and they admitted that the water samples that they had
taken from the craters had been carefully filtered before being tested. Under pressure from
us, Burger returned, took more samples and had them tested properly, at Spiez. He also found
low enriched uranium.
In my opinion, the release of the real report to the Russians was the work of a
whistle-blower, for the Spiez lab has highly trained people who take great pride in the
generally impeccable quality of the lab's work and its repuration for such. Many of them
would have been appalled that their lab was party to some sort of deception.
This would also explain why they went ahead and analyzed the samples for things other than
just what might have been requested, although I am inclined to believe that they were
requested to analyze for everything. This would only heighten the indination of those who did
the work upon discovering that an incomplete -- distorted -- report on thorough
(gündlich) work had been sent to one of the states parties to the Convention that had a
right to know everything.
Lavrov expressed similar doubts about the independence of the international investigation
into the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH17 in 2014, after floating many alternative
"theories".
"Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says there are a lot of questions regarding the
investigation into the downed MH17 Malaysia Airlines plane in eastern Ukraine, adding that it
is not independent, not comprehensive and not truly international." https://www.rt.com/news/311691-lavrov-mh17-malaysia-asean/
The Joint Investigation Team, consisting of the Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine, Belgium
and Australia, concluded that MH17 was shot down by a Russian missile under the control of
Donbas separatists. The Russian government continues to deny this.
My FB feed now has commercial media forwarding UK gov't claim that the Salisbury nerve agent
was "delivered in liquid form", FWIW. So -- what (if anything) is that worth?
Lavrov was right then, and he's right now. The "Joint Investigation Team" is actually "The Fix Is In Team". The official title is
just for show, to make infoganda that impresses the ignorant, complacent, and submissive. It's exactly like the Big Lie that "17 intelligence agencies separately concluded that
Russians meddled in US elections".
The technical ability of Porton Down to identify a chemical has never been in doubt, and
the only "finding of the United Kingdom " the OPCW has confirmed is the identity of the
chemical.
But what neither the British Government nor the OPCW have, to the present, acknowledged is
that blood samples from the Skripal's contained two nerve agents, A-234, aka Novichok, plus
3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate, aka BZ or Buzz.
Novichok is a convulsant (which acts by preventing the breakdown of the neurotransmitter
acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction, with the result that muscles go into full
contraction, hence the symptoms of convulsions, vomiting, etc.), whereas BZ is a paralytic
agent (which acts by binding to acetylcholine receptors at the neuromuscular junction without
activating them, thereby preventing muscle contraction, hence the symptoms of paralysis and
ultimately death by asphyxiation).
Thus, BZ will serve as an antidote to Novichok poisoning, wheras Novichok will serve as an
antidote to BZ poisoning. So the presence of Novichok in the Skipal blood samples is not
conclusive evidence that Novichok was the poison, rather than the antidote, as I have
discussed here: 3-Quinuclidinyl
Benzilate: The Antidote to Novichok , and here: Novichok:
Russia's Antidote to Seafood Poisoning .
"... And in the later articles posted here, he writes: "That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client jihadists), Saudi Arabia's close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals." ..."
I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury, amongst other possibilities. But I do rule out the possibility that Assad is
dropping chemical weapons in Ghouta. In this extraordinary war, where Saudi-funded jihadist
head choppers have Israeli air support and US and UK military "advisers", every time the Syrian
army is about to take complete control of a major jihadist enclave, at the last moment when
victory is in their grasp, the Syrian Army allegedly attacks children with chemical weapons,
for no military reason at all. We have been fed this narrative again and again and again.
We then face a propaganda onslaught from neo-con politicians, think tanks and "charities"
urging a great rain of Western bombs and missiles, and are accused of callousness towards
suffering children if we demur. This despite the certain knowledge that Western military
interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had consequences which remain to this day
utterly disastrous.
I fear that the massive orchestration of Russophobia over the last two years is intended to
prepare public opinion for a wider military conflict centred on the Middle East, but likely to
spread, and that we are approaching that endgame. The dislocation of the political and media
class from the general population is such, that the levers for people of goodwill to prevent
this are, as with Iraq, extremely few as politicians quake in the face of media jingoism. These
feel like extremely dangerous times.
"I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury"
Time for timid half-truths is over. If by now you haven't identified the Skripal affair as
the joint UK/US production it is, Act I of the AngloZionist war on Syria, Russia and
humanity, your analysis isn't worth the pixels it's written on. There is zero doubt. Case
closed. Especially after this:
I wish you realize that appeals to skepticism and lines like "I'm not fan of Putin/Assad"
get you nowhere. You are facing a brutal, fact-twisting, intellect-insulting, lying,
propaganda machine. Any concession you make to their "arguments" comes with the smell of
blood. They'll mock your "moderate" views and will try to make you look weak and foolish as
Sky-news did. You can't be only half-brave, half-informed and half-right. And why engage
those shameless liars if not to destroy completely their blatant lies?
When Hungary prepared democratically laws to stop Soros meddling in Hungary Soros phoned
Brussels, spoke to Juncker and Tusk, the next day Timmermans tried to intimidate the
Hungarian government.
Just now there have been Hungarian elections, anti migration and anti Soros Orban was
elected.
European parliament member Sargenti now wants to take Hungary's voting right in the EU
away.
Sargenti is on the 231 member list that seem to be followers of Soros.
As Jimmy Carter once said 'those that want war do not expect that they themselves are going
to be hurt'.
That in the next world war anyone will be more than hurt, killed, the war mongers do not
understand, cannot believe.
Please, why don't you mention the other possibilities, instead of "the Russian one"?
Bit harsh to criticise Craig Murray on that score. I see your point, and it would be a
valid point to raise with an establishment journo who has been generally an effective part of
the anti-Russia propaganda campaign, but Murray has discussed the other options on many
occasions (and been the brunt of some pretty harsh establishment bullying in response).
In this case, it can safely be regarded as just efficient writing.
Even if Assad did use gas, which he obviously didn't, who the heck are the Americans, the
British, and the French to lecture anyone on morality, given that they unlike Assad did
practice chemical warfare, and killed uncounted millions around the globe with "conventional"
means in order to loot them, and to "punish" Assad as the bankster with an Oedipus complex
Macron put it?
Mr Murray lost his job because he stood up for the right thing in 2004 and he has been
abused ever since. His sanity has been called into question ever since he suggested the
British government weren't telling the truth. His brief period in an instiuttion after Blair
sacked him has been brought up more than once.
I suspect Craig's position of apparent open-mindedness has arisen from a lengthy Sky News
TV interview with the appalling Kay Burley. He was careful in an eighteen minute segment not
to give cause for Burley to label him as a Putin bot. He was most careful not to take the
focus off the weakness in the British government's position and I think that was correct.
As soon as you see the tissue of lies emanating from London the innocence of Moscow
follows naturally. Mr Murray was correct not to allow himself to be provoked by Kay Burley
and she was visibly annoyed by her failure.
Sky News tried to bury the confrontation but somebody recorded it and you can find the
interview at craigmurray.org
The ever excellent Campaign Against the Arms Trade is back in the English High Court
again today in its continuing attempts to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It is against
UK law to sell arms to a country which is likely to use them in breach of international
humanitarian law , and that Saudi Arabia consistently and regularly uses British
weapons to bomb schools, hospitals and civilians is indisputable.
Why didn't the High Court ban arm sales to UK army, which is using them in breach of
international humanitarian law, consistently & regularly since its colonial era, in
Vietnam & Korea wars, Blair's Iraq WMD illegal war, Cameron's illegal Libya bombing, and
now May's illegal attack to Syria.
Saudi arabia Yemen's war pale in comparison to UK long history of atrocities. What a
British hypocrite law enacted in a kangaroo judicial system? A country of government infested
with shameless warmonger liars & paedophiles, yet popularly elected by its people. What a
great Anglosaxon-West civilization & glorious demoncrapcy system to be spread around the
world for easy subversion & regime change.
Proven guilty Iraq war criminal Tony Blair is walking free, repeating his same lies again
to push for illegal Syria attack. Yet not a single war protest from UK people. Touch a LBGT
issue or Trumps visit, British will gone hysteria protest in London, oh what a great nation.
World Capital of paedophiles, war criminals & pathological liars.
How can God save the Queen that connive criminals, with stolen wealth soaking with
innocents blood.
I appreciated the frame you provided.
That's a very serious charge against Great Britain -- sadly, I found it a somewhat
compelling and disconcerting.
I suspect that in all of this there are fears that it's a response to enemies without as
opposed to enemies from within. I have no idea where this notion comes from -- that states
can act as authority for UN missions without the consent of the UN. Great Britain's press
here sounds very much like the legal gymnastic of the US to invade Iraq and has much weight
-- I agree.
The chaos in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine is the direct result of US and EU manipulation. I
just don't know how to support "wrongness" on so many levels and consider myself a person of
integrity. The humanitarian crisis in all of the regions is exacerbated by our own violations
of law and foreign policy best practices.
Not a bad article, but superficial. Does not address the why question and the huge
ideological difference between Russia and the 'West' which leads to war.
Agree. Resisting lying provocation to war should be done with what ZUSA terms "moral
clarity." Said another way, No Quarter, No Mercy. If the need is felt to characterize Assad, the only things that needs be said are that he
is the legitimate leader of a sovereign nation, and that attempts to topple him, by ZUSA
& Anglos, are in direct violation of United Nations charter.
I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury, amongst other possibilities.
And I have never ruled out the word which can not be spoken, that ISRAEL was behind both
attacks, to justify getting their US/UK/French lackeys to do in Syria what they can not
without taking losses, attacking Syrian cities with cruise missiles.
Poisoned toothpaste and exploding phones: New book chronicles Israel's '2,700'
assassination operations
Poisoned toothpaste that takes a month to end its target's life. Armed drones. Exploding
mobile phones. Spare tyres with remote-control bombs. Assassinating enemy scientists and
discovering the secret lovers of Muslim clerics.
A new book chronicles these techniques and asserts that Israel has carried out at
least 2,700 assassination operations in its 70 years of existence. While many failed,
they add up to far more than any other western country, the book says.
The main beneficiary of the recent cruise missile attacks against Syria is Israel, so
let's be honest and see what happens.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25
people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if
you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
So, aside from selling weapons to Syria and Iran – and thus, giving up control over
those weapons – what exactly should Putin have done to continue receiving your
approval? Start WW3?
Another question: if this is just a staged play of good cop, bad cop – why does the
puppet master behind the scenes not advance the plot? Why the need for silly diversions into
the bucolic English countryside, and for embarrassing cameos by French boy princes?
Not sure where you are from, but some countries – particularly those that have
experienced it at home – consider war a serious business, not quite the same as a bar
brawl in Dodge City.
I keep hearing that the Qatar – Europe pipeline is the source of the Syria War, what I
cant understand if their so desperate for this why does it need to go through Syria, theres`s
other ways like across SA and up the red sea?
In Murray's first post on the Skripal story, he lists other possible suspects as Orbis
Intelligence (who produced the Steele dossier) and the state of Israel:
And in the later articles posted here, he writes: "That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client
jihadists), Saudi Arabia's close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a
powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia
in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals."
The West would simply like him to meet his obligations and stop gassing people as there
is an international agreement against killing people that way. Why can't he just stick
to the normal use of high explosives to blast them to pieces?
Why can't he just stick to the normal use of high explosives to blast them to
pieces?
Because that process is still under Israeli patent protection??
Didn't he and various generals plainly state that retaliation would be swift and
immediately delivered to any such platform?
Yes, if Russian military assets in Syria are targeted or hit. The US strike was the
warfare equivalent of a plate smashing fit thrown by a hysterical tranny. Just a loud
demonstration of impotence and fishing for attention. It's better handled unanswered. Now, if
the tranny decides to go in a full abuser mode, Putin may seriously mess up her makeup.
Russia and the Syrian regime have been accused
by western diplomats of denying chemical weapons inspectors access to sites in the town of
Douma, where an attack killed dozens and prompted US-led missile strikes over the weekend.
Russia and Syria had
cited "pending security issues" before inspectors could deploy to the town outside Damascus,
said Ahmet Üzümcü, the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, at a meeting of the OPCW's executive council.
Syrian authorities were offering 22 people to interview as witnesses instead, he said,
adding that he hoped "all necessary arrangements will be made to allow the team to deploy to
Douma as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, the Trump administration delayed action on sanctions against Russians suspected
of helping Syria's chemical weapons programme, contradicting remarks on Sunday by the US envoy
to the UN, Nikki Haley.
"... For decades, a little-known section of the British Foreign Office – the Information Research Department (IRD) – carried out propaganda campaigns using the international media as its platform on behalf of MI-6. Years before Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir became targets for Western destabilization and "regime change." IRD and its associates at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and in the newsrooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street broadsheets, tabloids, wire services, and magazines, particularly "The Daily Telegraph," "The Times," "Financial Times," Reuters, "The Guardian," and "The Economist," ran media smear campaigns against a number of leaders considered to be leftists, communists, or FTs (fellow travelers). ..."
"... After the Cold War, this same propaganda operation took aim at Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Somalia's Mohamad Farrah Aidid, and Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Today, it is Assad's, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's, and Catalonian independence leader Carles Puigdemont's turn to be in the Anglo-American state propaganda gunsights. Even Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, long a darling of the Western media and such propaganda moguls as George Soros, is now being targeted for Western visa bans and sanctions over the situation with Muslim Rohingya insurgents in Rakhine State. ..."
"... Through IRD-MI-6-Central Intelligence Agency joint propaganda operations, many British journalists received payments, knowingly or unknowingly, from the CIA via a front in London called Forum World Features (FWF), owned by John Hay Whitney, publisher of the "New York Herald Tribune" and a former US ambassador to London. ..."
When it comes to creating bogus news stories and advancing false narratives, the British
intelligence services have few peers. In fact, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) has led
the way for its American "cousins" and Britain's Commonwealth partners – from Canada and
Australia to India and Malaysia – in the dark art of spreading falsehoods as truths.
Recently, the world has witnessed such MI-6 subterfuge in news stories alleging that Russia
carried out a novichok nerve agent attack against a Russian émigré and his
daughter in Salisbury, England. This propaganda barrage was quickly followed by yet another
– the latest in a series of similar fabrications – alleging the Syrian government
attacked civilians in Douma, outside of Damascus, with chemical weapons.
It should come as no surprise that American news networks rely on British correspondents
stationed in northern Syria and Beirut as their primary sources. MI-6 has historically relied
on non-official cover (NOC) agents masquerading primarily as journalists, but also humanitarian
aid workers, Church of England clerics, international bankers, and hotel managers, to carry out
propaganda tasks. These NOCs are situated in positions where they can promulgate British
government disinformation to unsuspecting actual journalists and diplomats.
For decades, a little-known section of the British Foreign Office – the Information
Research Department (IRD) – carried out propaganda campaigns using the international
media as its platform on behalf of MI-6. Years before Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam
Hussein, Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir became targets for Western
destabilization and "regime change." IRD and its associates at the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) and in the newsrooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street broadsheets,
tabloids, wire services, and magazines, particularly "The Daily Telegraph," "The Times,"
"Financial Times," Reuters, "The Guardian," and "The Economist," ran media smear campaigns
against a number of leaders considered to be leftists, communists, or FTs (fellow
travelers).
These leaders included Indonesia's President Sukarno, North Korean leader (and grandfather
of Pyongyang's present leader) Kim Il-Sung, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Cyprus's Archbishop
Makarios, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chile's Salvador Allende, British Guiana's Cheddi Jagan,
Grenada's Maurice Bishop, Jamaica's Michael Manley, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Guinea's Sekou
Toure, Burkina Faso's Thomas Sankara, Australia's Gough Whitlam, New Zealand's David Lange,
Cambodia's Norodom Sihanouk, Malta's Dom Mintoff, Vanuatu's Father Walter Lini, and Ghana's
Kwame Nkrumah.
After the Cold War, this same propaganda operation took aim at Serbian President Slobodan
Milosevic, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Somalia's Mohamad Farrah
Aidid, and Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Today, it is Assad's, Hungarian Prime Minister
Viktor Orban's, and Catalonian independence leader Carles Puigdemont's turn to be in the
Anglo-American state propaganda gunsights. Even Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, long a darling
of the Western media and such propaganda moguls as George Soros, is now being targeted for
Western visa bans and sanctions over the situation with Muslim Rohingya insurgents in Rakhine
State.
Through IRD-MI-6-Central Intelligence Agency joint propaganda operations, many British
journalists received payments, knowingly or unknowingly, from the CIA via a front in London
called Forum World Features (FWF), owned by John Hay Whitney, publisher of the "New York Herald
Tribune" and a former US ambassador to London.
It is not a stretch to believe that similar and
even more formal relationships exist today between US and British intelligence and so-called
British "journalists" reporting from such war zones as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan,
and the Gaza Strip, as well as from much-ballyhooed nerve agent attack locations as Salisbury,
England.
No sooner had recent news reports started to emerge from Douma about a Syrian chlorine gas
and sarin agent attack that killed between 40 to 70 civilians, British reporters in the Middle
East and London began echoing verbatim statements from the Syrian "White Helmets" and the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
In actuality, the White Helmets – claimed by Western media to be civilian defense
first-responders but are Islamist activists connected to jihadist radical groups funded by
Saudi Arabia – are believed to have staged the chemical attack in Douma by entering the
municipality's hospital and dowsing patients with buckets of water, video cameras at the ready.
The White Helmets distributed their videos to the global news media, with the BBC and Rupert
Murdoch's Sky News providing a British imprimatur to the propaganda campaign asserting that
Assad carried out another "barrel bomb" chemical attack against "his own people." And, as
always, the MI-6 financed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-Assad news front claimed
to be operated by a Syrian expatriate and British national named Rami Abdel Rahman from his
clothing shop in Coventry, England, began providing second-sourcing for the White Helmet's
chemical attack claims.
With President Trump bringing more and more neo-conservatives, discredited from their
massive anti-Iraq propaganda operations during the Bush-Cheney era, into his own
administration, the world is witnessing the prolongation of the "Trump Doctrine."
The Trump Doctrine can best be explained as follows: A nation will be subject to a US
military attack depending on whether Trump is facing a severe political or sex scandal at
home.
Such was the case in April 2017, when Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on the joint
Syrian-Russian airbase at Shayrat, Syria. Trump was still reeling from the resignation of his
National Security Adviser, Lt. General Michael Flynn, in February over the mixing of his
private consulting business with his official White House duties. Trump needed a diversion and
the false accusation that Assad used sarin gas on the village of Khan Sheikoun on April 4,
2017, provided the necessary pabulum for the war-hungry media.
The most recent cruise missile attack was to divert the public's attention away from Trump's
personal attorney being raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a sex scandal involving
Trump and a porn actress, and a "tell-all" book by Trump's fired FBI director, James Comey.
Although these two scandals provided opportunities for the neo-cons to test Trump with false
flag operations in Syria, they were not the first time such actions had been carried out. In
2013, the Syrian government was blamed for a similar chemical attack on civilians in Ghouta.
That year, Syrian rebels, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, admitted to the
Associated Press reporter on the ground in Syria that they had been given banned chemical
weapons by Saudi Arabia, but that the weapons canisters exploded after improper handling by the
rebels. Immediately, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Syrian rebel organizations
operating out of Turkey claimed that Assad had used chemical-laden barrel bombs on "his own
people." However, Turkish, American, and Lebanese sources confirmed that it was the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) that had badly bungled a false flag sarin nerve agent
attack on Ghouta.
Few Western media outlets were concerned about a March 19, 2013, sarin nerve agent by the
Bashair al-Nasr Brigade rebel group linked to the US- and British-backed Free Syrian Army. The
rebels used a "Bashair-3" unguided projectile, containing the deadly sarin agent, on civilians
in Khan al-Assal, outside Aleppo. At least 27 civilians were killed, and scores of others
injured in the attack. The Syrian Kurds also reported the use of chemical weapons on them
during the same time frame by Syrian rebel groups backed by the United States, Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia. The usual propaganda operations – Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,
Doctors Without Borders, the BBC, CNN, and Sky News – were all silent about these
attacks.
In 2013, April 2017, and April 2018, the Western media echo chamber blared out all the same
talking points: "Assad killing his own people," "Syrian weapons of mass destruction," and the
"mass murder of women and children." Western news networks featured videos of dead women and
children, while paid propagandists, known as "contributors" to corporate news networks –
all having links to the military-intelligence complex – demanded action be taken against
Assad.
Trump, now being advised by the notorious neocon war hawk John Bolton, the new National
Security Adviser, began referring to Assad as an "animal" and a "monster." Bolton, along with
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby, helped craft similar
language against Saddam Hussein prior to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was
not coincidental that Trump – at the urging of Bolton and other neocons – gave a
full pardon to Libby on the very same day he ordered the cruise missile attack on Damascus and
other targets in Syria. Libby was convicted in 2005 of perjury and illegally disclosing
national security information.
The world is being asked to take, at face value, the word of patented liars like Trump,
Bolton, and other neocons who are now busy joining the Trump administration at breakneck speed.
The corporate media unabashedly acts as though it never lied about the reasons given by the
United States and Britain for going to war in Iraq and Libya. Why should anyone believe them
now?
Wayne
MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society
of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
Russian foreign claims Skripal and Yulia were poisoned by chemical made in UK
Sergey Lavrov says pair were not attacked with novichock but instead with BZ
'This formulation was in the inventory of the US and Britain,' Mr Lavrov said
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, claims former spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by a non-lethal chemical made in Britain and the US.
Mr Lavrov says the pair were not attacked with novichock but instead with BZ - a toxin never
developed in Russia - which a laboratory in Spiez,
Switzerland, found.
'This formulation was in the inventory of the United States, Britain and other Nato states,'
Mr Lavrov said.
"The Iraqi weapon. The existence of a BZ-related compound, called Agent-15, in
Iraq's arsenals was revealed in 1998 . Apparently, Iraq possessed large quantities of the
agent since the 1980s. A document found by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in
1995 contained a brief reference to this agent and subsequent assessment of relevant
scientific and other background material indicated the size of the stockpile. Soldiers of
3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart Georgia found facilities used for the production
of these weapons. The facilities had been closed for several years before the invasion as
dust almost a half inch thick was noted on everything. Records books of personnel who had
entered the buildings and other project related equipment looked as though everything had
been stopped suddenly and it did not appear that the research had ever progressed to a
state of actual production ".
And from this [2014 Wikipedia cached page]:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140618215854/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychochemical_weapon
">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychochemical_weapon">https://web.archive.org/web/20140618215854/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychochemical_weapon
" Britain was also investigating the possible weaponization of LSD (lysergic acid
diethylamide) and BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate) as nonlethal battlefield drug-weapons
Hungarian researcher Lajos Rosza wrote that records of Hungary's State Defense Council
meetings from 1962 to 1978 suggest that the Warsaw Pact forum had considered a psychochemical
agent such as Methylamphetamine as a possible weapon
.. The United States eventually weaponized the chemical BZ for delivery in the M43 BZ cluster
bomb until stocks were destroyed in 1989 ."
2. Zanders JP: CW Agent Factsheet - Agent-15:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070613005906/http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/agent15.html
">http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/agent15.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20070613005906/http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/agent15.html
)
"Little information is publicly known about Agent-15, except that it is closely related to
BZ. The understanding of its physiological effects is based on studies with the latter agent.
The existence of Agent-15 in Iraq's arsenals was revealed by the British Secretary of
State George Robertson in a statement to the House of Commons on 9 February 1998.
According to the statement, Iraq may have possessed large quantities of the agent since the
1980s. A document found by the UN Special Commission on Iraq ( UNSCOM ) in August 1995
contained a brief reference to Agent-15 and subsequent assessment of relevant scientific and
other background material indicated the size of the stockpile."
"In February 1998, the British Ministry of Defence released an intelligence
report that accused Iraq of having stockpiled large amounts of a glycolate anticholinergic
incapacitating agent known as Agent 15.[citation needed] Agent 15 is an alleged Iraqi
incapacitating agent that is likely to be chemically either identical to BZ or closely
related to it. Agent 15 was reportedly stockpiled in large quantities prior to and during the
Persian Gulf War. The combination of anticholinergic PNS and CNS effects aids in the
diagnosis of patients exposed to these agents.
Also in 1998, there were allegations that elements of the Yugoslav People's Army used
incapacitating agents against fleeing Bosnian refugees during Srebrenica massacre in 1995
that caused hallucinations and irrational behavior. Physical evidence of BZ use in Bosnia is
unsupported, however."
And from the current 2018 Wikipedia page on '3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate':
"The U.S. Army tested BZ as well as other "psycho-chemical" agents on human
subjects at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland from 1955 to 1975 , according to declassified
documents."
the BZ was probably in the food at the restaurant (Zizzi) and they may have gotten a huge
dose, it very potent. This would account for the delay -- restaurant to park bench, needs to
be absorbed through the GI tract.
I don't believe the doorknob scenario-- I think you would have to have several milligrams
of nerve agent in a skin permeable solvent DMSO or DMF plus gelling agent to make it stick
and then it would have to be wet to transfer onto the skin and then get absorbed. First, the
target might notice the handle is sticky and wash his/her hands in which case you get no
effect if its done in a minute or so and the water is alkaline as it is in England. Then,
assuming the gel isn't noticed the transfer would be pretty inefficient as the agent has to
be absorbed from a small surface area through the keratin of the skin. If you got things just
right, applied the novichok in a nice anhydrous solvent and no rain got in it and someone
touched it before the solvent evaporated, then you might be able to give a lethal dose.
Having said that, if you absorbed say 0.1mg or so the effects would be pretty immediate
collapse in 15 mins or so. So in my opinion the doorknob scenario is rubbish-- if you could
get it to work the Skripal that touched the handle would have collapsed before getting near
the restaurant.
So I think that there are way too many variables that would need to be optimized to get a
nice transfer. But if you managed to achieve this feat the target would be very sick in about
10 mins or so.
The way to use a nerve agent is to aerosolize it, then its easy to get 1-2mg into the
lungs and onto the mucosa where it is absorbed very fast (Kim's brother), the transfer
through the skin is much more difficult. So my bet is BZ in the food--a huge dose, hence the
consulatant's letter saying its not an nerve agent. It's an anti-cholinergic (like atropin),
not an anti-cholinesterase (nerve gas).
@ Paveway IV -- comment 98
Paveway, I'm not sure whether you've seen Sushi's instalments in the "Curious Incident"
series at the Saker, but perhaps you'd consider looking at the most recent one, instalment 8,
and then examining the hypothetical narrative below.
Sushi,
A superb instalment on a stellar "Curious Incident" series.
I am trying to construct a narrative that accounts for what we have plausible reason to
infer, but which does not rely on any official interlocutors (except perhaps Boris Johnson,
who may not be able to help himself) clearly lying.
First question--and I imagine you might cover this in your next instalment:
Am I correct in thinking that BZ and any of the Novichok / Foliant series are simply not
similar enough to be covered by Porton Down's public description of the substance "in
question" as being:
a) a Novichok
b) or from that class of nerve agent
c) or a closely related compound
BZ isn't a), isn't b) a nerve agent at all and c) is not closely related to any of the
family of compounds that could be in any way considered a Novichok.
Inferences:
1) So, if the finding was actually BZ, when the OPCW confirms the UK's findings, the OPCW is
not confirming any of the statements made along lines a), b) or c).
The OPCW, then, is not
i) confirming that the substance is of a "type developed by Russia" and so it would seem are
either, instead
ii) confirming something the Salisbury medical personnel have been quoted as saying, or
iii) confirming the findings of some other entity that can be plausibly glossed as having
official ("UK") findings, or
iv) are confirming UK findings not made public.
Which is to say that all along there have been at least two substances in play, and a bit
of a bait and switch game, in which "it" is presumed to be specified but the descriptions are
referring to another substance.
For example, the bait is Novichoks, etc. But when we think they are referring to a
substance whose metabolites are found in the Skripals' biophysical samples, that substance
may actually be bench-grade or lab-grade BZ. Some other sample--taken from a park bench, door
knob, restaurant, cemetary headstone, or car ventilation system, may have been tested as
containing highly pure (Porton Down lab-grade) A-234, for example.
Each time we think they are talking about one, they are talking about another, and we
never really pause to re-examine which "it" they are referring to.
Not technically a lie, except perhaps what might initially seem like an "innocent"
exaggeration--"weapons-grade" but actually this, as you note, is a big giveaway. The
substance for which the OPCW is confirming the UK findings, is not weapons grade, but as they
say, virtually without impurities. You are the only source I am aware of who has emphasized
that weapons-grade is not, as the lay person might suppose, highly pure but is in fact marked
by certain impurities from a full-scale production run and perhaps additionally to introduce
changes of viscosity, etc.
Is any of this making sense, and does anything seem factually incorrect here?
Russia announced today that the S-300 long-range air defense system would be provided to the
Syrian air defenses. That would be a game-changer in terms of both detection and range.
Israel is sure to be displeased because it puts Israeli and Lebanese airspace within range.
S-300 radar could also be data-linked with the S-120 and S-200 systems. The increased risk to
Israeli missions over Syria would be immense. IMO that counts as a "very serious consequence"
of the raid. Russia had withheld that system as long as part of a bargaining strategy with
FUKUS. After their display of malice and treachery, the lid on defensive aid to SYAAF has
been removed.
Report from Southfront states that the cruise missiles had their targeting jammed by
Russian EW, i.e. they were mostly wounded ducks by the time they reached Damascus. Syrian air
defense was mostly preventing random ground strikes by off-target missiles, in addition to
getting valuable training. That would explain something I observed in videos of the
shootdowns, that a lot of the targets were on a high arc. That's not my understanding of how
cruise missiles are supposed to be flying in the target area.
What I learned in many years of travel is that politicians in most of they world are
profoundly aware of the long game. In NA (sorry Mexico) they seldom think past the next poll
and never past the next round of elections. Sadly, it seems many commentators here reflect
the same conclusion when they cannot see the long game that must be played to allow the
empire to collapse. There will be thrashing about as the beast gets hyped with its' own
version of weaponized LSD (MSM fear-mongering) and inevitably there will be casualties. No
amount of showdown force will help while the beast is thrashing - it is impossible to
constrain a person in the middle of a fit - and the patience to allow the episode to pass is
exemplary. and necessary if we are to have a future with hope.
Putin and Xi are playing the long game, with profound grief it is Syria that bears the
brunt of the thrashing. May it end quickly
a. non-lethal but incapacitating
b. hard to make a lethal overdose - safe for incapacitations, Skripals could get high dose to
be incapacitated for many days, but suffer no permanent damage that was described for victims
of "novichok" accidents -- like malfunction of the lab hood.
c. delayed action
d. very durable when spread on surfaces, water resistant -- English rain would not be a
problem, and it would be detectable weeks after.
It is manifestly not an assassination weapon, but it could be considered to incapacitate
terrorists or defenders in bunkers or tunnels, a ship crew etc., together with hostages,
civilians etc.
Paul@129 - Old Microbiologist and others are really the ones to ask but
AFIK, a BZ molecule and FOLIANT nerve agents are entirely unrelated
animals in a chemical sense. The only commonality comes when you
consider them under the CWC's "certain toxic chemicals and their
precursors" schedules. The OPCW considers certain incapacitating agents,
including BZ, as potential chemical weapons. BZ is listed as a Schedule
2
Toxic Chemical. 'Novichoks' would be the higher risk/no non-CW use Schedule
1 list.
As far as the UK and OPCW parties playing deception by substitution or
deception by omission in their public statements? I think that's exactly
what Lavrov is hinting at. The UK is implying that only one chemical
toxin - a nerve agent - was found and is being discussed. In hindsight,
the odd use of 'military grade' might just mean 'weaponized'. In the case
of BZ, the powder has to be micronized (ground up in a jet mill) to some
ridiculously tiny size - like a micron - to travel deep into the lungs, but
not so tiny that it is immediately exhaled. I imagine the purity can only
be figured out by having enough undegraded substance to analyze. That's
nearly impossible with a nerve agent with a half-life of hours. BZ has
a half-life of weeks.
No idea if the two can be/were used together or separately or why they
would even do that. The mere presence of both is what's interesting.
If they found both Novichok-whatever AND BZ, then the whole 'Made in Russia'
claim falls apart. It doesn't mean the UK or US absolutely made it either, but
sort of levels off the playing field. The fact that they are trying to keep
everything about BZ secret means they were clearly being deceptive in order
to blame Russia based on just the 'Novichok' part.
Now whether Lavrov's suggestion of BZ is accurate or whether the OPCW or
UK will ever reveal the secret details remains to be seen.
The Russians explicitly state that the Swiss specialists found an "A-234 type" nerve agent
in the samples, along with the BZ. The "A-234" is suspicious because it is a volatile
substance, but was found in its "initial state (pure form and high concentration)" as well as
with products of its decomposition. BZ better fits what happened to the Skripals. A-234 would
not have remained in a pure state for so long -- and would have quickly killed the
Skripals.
This makes the Spiez Labs statement sound even more extraordinarily coy than it did in the
first place. It doesn't say that Spiez found a "Novichok"; it says Spiez trusts that Portdon
Down did.
This seems to come down -- yet again -- to that word "Novichok." My reading: Spiez found,
along with the BZ, an A-234-like compound, but did not want to get into a public argument
about whether or not it was the precise compound developed long ago by the Soviet Union and
loosely identified by some as one of the "Novichoks" (newcomers).
The NYT's Best-Sellers lists undoubtedly includes one of my old favorites:
The US Army's Medical Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook. Just the
thing to curl up with before nodding off in your medically-induced coma.
Here's the
14 pages on BZ, but none of you are allowed to
read it - unless you voted for Trump.
There is no novichok. from the files....
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents,
'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the
'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)
"... But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies. ..."
"... And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. ..."
"... a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. ..."
"... The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution ..."
"... the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing. ..."
"... But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity. ..."
Poison gas is not only deadly, it often provokes a slow suffocating death. That, perpetrated
on innocent children, is particularly cruel.
But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news",
and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what
it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies.
Is that what we have become – brainless, greedy, selfish beings, no sense of
solidarity, no respect for other beings; I am not even talking about humans, but any living
being.
Poison gas, the weapon of choice for fear.
Poisoning in Salisbury of the former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, visiting her dad from Moscow. Poisoning with a nerve gas, called Novichok that was
allegedly made in Russia. In the meantime, we know that nerve gas made in the former Soviet
Union, now non-existent in Russia, was military grade and deadly. The gas used for the alleged
attack was not deadly. We also know by now that the UK – all of their highest officials,
from PM May down the ladder, lied so miserably that they will have a hard time recovering. It
will backfire. Unlike the foreign secretary, Johnson boy pretended their secret bio-gas /
bio-weapon laboratory Porton Down, just 13 km down the road from Salisbury, where the pair was
allegedly found unconscious on a park bench, assured him the gas was made in Russia. Alas, the
laboratories chief chemists testified later to the media that they could not be sure that the
substance was made in Russia. No, of course not.
In fact, Porton Down, working in close collaboration with the CIA, is a highly sophisticated
chemical warfare facility that can easily make the gas themselves – at the grades they
please, deadly or not so deadly, if it should serve a "false news" purpose – which this
did.
Were father and daughter indeed poisoned? – This is a legitimate question. Who has
seen them since the alleged poisoning occurred on 28 March? – They disappeared from the
public eye. Apparently, they are both recovering, Yulia having been released from hospital a
few days ago, but has not been seen by anyone in public, nor been able to talk to the media,
lest she could say "something" the public is not allowed to know. Her father is also recovering
and may be released soon – released from where? – Is this all a farce?
An aunt talked to Yulia from Moscow, where she noticed that Yulia was not free to talk. The
aunt wanted to visit her niece in the UK but was obviously denied a visa.
Where are father and daughter? – Washington has "offered" them a new home and new
identity in the US, to avoid further poisoning attempts how ridiculous! A blind man or woman
must see that this is another farce, or more correctly, an outright abduction. The two won't
have a chance to resist. They are just taken away – not to talk anymore to anyone ever.
– That's the way the story goes. The lies are protected, and the "Russia did it" syndrome
will prevail – prevail in the dumb folded public, in the herd of pigs that we all have
become, as Goebbels would say.
And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing
else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and
conquered. But the empire needs the public for their support. And the empire is almost
there. It disposes of a vicious media corporate army – that lies flagrantly about
anything that money can buy. It's like spitting in the face of the world, and nobody seems to
care, or worse, even to notice.
* * *
On the other side of the Mediterranean is Syria. A vast and noble country, Syria,
with a leader who truly loves his people and country, a leader who has despite a foreign
induced war – not civil war – a proxy war, instigated and funded by
Washington and its vassal allies in Europe and the Middle East; Syria, a highly educated
socialist country that has shared the benefit of her resources, free education, free medical
services, free basic infrastructure, with her people. This Syria must fall. Such strength
cannot be tolerated by the all-dominating west. Like Iraq and Libya, also socialist countries
once-upon-a-time, and like Syria, secular Muslim nations, sharing their countries wealth with
the people, such countries must fall.
According to Pentagon planners and those Zion-neofascist thinktanks that designed the PNAC
(Plan for a New American Century), as the chief instrument of US foreign policy, we know since
Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied commander and Chief of NATO in Europe (1997-2000)
talked to Democracy Now in 2007, saying that within 5 years seven countries must fall, one of
them is Syria.
Since 2011, the Syrian people have been bombarded by US and NATO and Saudi funded
terrorists, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Now, even more
blatantly, US bases are vying to occupying the northern third of Syria, totally illegally, but
nobody says beep. Not even the UN.
The recent fake gas attack on Douma outside of Damascus, has allegedly killed 80 to 120
people, mostly women and children.
Of course, that sells best in the propaganda theatre – women and children. Strangely,
like last time the infamous White Helmets discovered the gas victims, including a gas
canister-like bomb laying on a bed, having been shot through the roof of a house a totally
and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported.
They called on an independent investigation, one that could not be bought and corrupted by
Washington. President Assad invited a team of investigators to inspect the scene.
Instead of heeding this invitation, Trump, the bully, calls Mr. Assad an "animal" and a
"monster", twittering his brainless aggressions throughout the world. Tell you what, Mr. Trump,
Bashar al-Assad is a far better human being than you are a monster. You and your dark handlers
don't even deserve being called human. Mr. Assad has regard and respect for his people,
attempts to protect them and has so far succeeded with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,
recovering the last bits of Syrian territory from the terrorist, except of course, the northern
part, where the chief terrorist and the world's only rogue state has itself installed, the US
of A. – Why in the world would Mr. Assad choose to gas his own people? Especially, when
he is winning the war? – People, ask yourself, cui bono (who benefits?) and the
answer is simple: The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even
more rubble, causing even more death and destitution . That's who.
While you, Donald, and those monsters that direct you from behind the scenes, have no, but
absolutely no respect for your people, for any people on this globe, for that matter, not even
for your kind, for your greed-no-end kind of elite, as you bring the world to the brink of an
all-destructive, all killing annihilating war.
Since the other fake event, 9/11, we are, of course, already in a "soft version" of WWIII,
but that's not enough, the United States needs a hard war, so badly it doesn't shy away from
destroying itself. That's how blinded your own propaganda has made you Americans, you generals,
you corporate "leaders" (sic-sic) – and all you Congress puppets. That is the sheer
truth. You better read this and wake up. Otherwise your dead sentence is hastened by your own
greed and ignorance.
Both Russia and the US drafted a Security Council Resolution – which of course are
both not approved, with Nikki Haley lambasting Russia, accusing them of being responsible for
the countless deaths in Syria – pointing again to the children and women, making up the
majority. Again, it sells best in the world of psychological propaganda, while evil Nikki Haley
knows very well who has caused all these deaths by the millions, destitution and refugees by
the millions, tens of millions throughout the Middle East and the world – her own
country, directly or through NATO, the European puppets allies and proxy wars, paid and funded
by Washington and by elbow-twisting her vassals.
On 9 April – UNSC – while Nikki Haley, repeats and over-repeats her lies and
fake accusations, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Vassily Nebenzia, listens. And then in
a twenty-minute statement of sheer intelligence, he dismantles all the lies, and lays bare the
truth, about all the fakeness being played out internationally. The depth with which he
addresses the assembly is concise and so brilliant, none of his UK, French and German
counterparts could have ever come close to a statement of this magnitude and excellence. Even
Ms. Haley can't help glancing over ever-so
often to Vassily Nebenzia, as he speaks . Her eyes reveal some kind of hidden admiration
for what he says. – After all, she can't be as dumb as she is paid for to look and
sound.
By now anybody who dares not just reading and listening to the mainstream presstitute "fake
news", but has the courage to dig into the truth news, RT, TeleSur, CGTN, PressTV – and a
few others, or websites like Global Research, The Saker Blog, ICH, NEO, Greanville Post
CounterCurrent, Dissident Voice and many other trustworthy sources – knows about the lies
and the only, but the very only purpose these false flags cum false news serve:
Provoking a war with Russia, subjugating and dividing Syria, and the Middle East and becoming
the hegemonic masters of the universe.
For the simple reason, and hardly anybody talks or writes about it – the US
economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which
finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon
manufacturing.
The entire war industry with all its associated civil services and industries, of banking,
electronics, aviation, mining . makes up more than half of the US GDP – but of course,
it's never broken down that way. The chosen people will control the world. Well, they do
already – financially at least the western part of our globe. But it's not enough. They
will not stop, before they burry themselves in their own-dug graves, or rather in one massive
mass-grave. But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and
more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And
give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on
humanity.
Can't recall where I read this info, but elder Skripal was being surveilled by FSB cause
working with MI6 and Ukrainian regime. So, he was being watched, but just how closely?
Perhaps to the point where Russia knows UK's lying. In other words, Mr. Skripal remains in
employ of MI6.
Will Russia be able to prove its claim of British involvement? If so could it free Yulia
Scripal?
No way that Yulia Skripal is going to be released. Too dangerous. Absolutely
everyone who was directly involved has been taken off-line, and not allowed to speak. The
doctor who wrote the letter to the Times, the personnel of the hospital who treated the
victims, the cop, and the Skripals themselves. No public word from any. It's a big effort by
the authorities, which shows how sensitive they are.
That would make scene and tie in with a couple of things i read/saw in the early days,
sadly also can't recall where. That Mr Skripal was meeting regularly with MI6/5 handlers and
was giving lectures to the military, which of course may explain why he is living in British
military heartland.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed that the
Skirpals were
poisoned with a specific "toxic chemical," as alleged by the British government. Both
public statement and classified version, however, decline to offer any specific theories on the
origin of the poison.
That's a problem for Britain, which has been blaming the Russian government for the
poisoning since long before testing began. They identified the poison as Novichuk, and
concluded it was Russia's fault, despite there being other nations with access to the
chemical.
British officials were quick to claim the OPCW report as vindication, since the classified
version reportedly contained the chemical formula for the poison. Yet without any evidence on
where it came from, they're really no better off than before.
The Skirpal poisonings were used by the British government to take major diplomatic measures
against Russia. Russia has denied anything to do with the incident, and offered to help
investigate. Britain has spurned that offer and continued to blame them.
Regarding fukus shenanigans,
How could we omit the CIA/MI6 'greatest hit ', the 1965 genocide of 3M Indonesians
'leftists suspects' , The mother of all regime changes ???
The Skriptal caper looks like kindergarten stuff compared to that 1965
genocide.
fukus orchestrated that bloodbath to remove prez Sukarno cuZ he's pro Beijing. MI6 planted disinfo in HK media about an imminent China sponsored coup , supported by
ethnic Chinese fifth columns.
CIA planted 'evidence' of Chinese supplied arms , to be conveniently 'discovered' by Indon
police . [1]
That devious plot provoked a bloodbath by jihadists death squads against the PKI communists
members and ethnic Chinese indons.
CIA whistle blower, John Mcgehee,
The Indonesian covert action of 1965, reported by Ralph McGehee, who was in that area
division, and had documents on his desk, in his custody about that operation. He said that
one of the documents concluded that this was a model operation that should be copied
elsewhere in the world. Not only did it eliminate the effective communist party
(Indonesian communist party), it also eliminated the entire segment of the population
that tended to support the communist party – the ethnic Chinese, Indonesian Chinese.
And the CIA's report put the number of dead at 800,000 killed. And that was one covert
action. We're talking about 1 to 3 million people killed in these things.
[2]
[1]
U.S. officials were particularly interested in linking the September 30th plotters to
Beijing. They helped to spread stories about China's alleged involvement and reported on
caches of weapons purportedly "discovered" by the Indonesian army with the hammer and
sickle conveniently stamped on them. "
We have bonanza chance to nail chicoms on disastrous events in Indonesia ," Green
wrote the State Department. He urged a "continuation [of] covert propaganda" as one of the
"best means of spreading [the] idea of chicom complicity
'Company ' veterans are so proud of that CIA'S greatest hit,
they still reminiscent fondly over it around the water cooler, until this very day.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Your decrying confirms that the British has done something wrong and they did poison
Skripals in Salisbury England. This unscrupulous false flag op, crying foul and smearing the
innocent for the crime they committed relentlessly is a special signature of the
British/Anglo culture and trait. The following history provides the evidence the above is not
allegation but fact.
Nov 24, 1784, a British gunner on the ship "Lady Hughes" fired cannon against Chinese law
and killed two Chinese in Guangzhou. The British refused to hand over the gunner to the
Chinese authority for trail and called up few hundred armed sailors to stop the Chinese
authority from searching the perpetrator in the British warehouses and living compound.
Anyhow the British was outwitted and the perpetrator was tried by the Chinese, convicted
and executed in according to the Chinese law; during that time the British law also gave
death penalty for the same crime.
The British had been trampling other people's sovereignty and law like India with impunity
for a couple of hundreds of years already by then. Never a British was tried and punished for
the crimes, murder or not, they committed since they supplanted the Spanish. British viewed
themselves above all human beings and not bound by any other people's law. The execution of
the gunner made the British Council of Supercargos feel humiliated and devastated as well as
being impotent and incompetent in the eyes of their superiors in London and their peers
(other Europeans) in Guangzhou.
In order to cover their crimes and failures, the megalomaniac British decried Chinese
legal system was barbaric and sanguinary relentlessly like Anonymous[338] is doing here to
Russia. All the Europeans jumped on the British mudslinging bandwagon for the effort to gain
extraterritoriality in China, so they could steal, loot, plunder, etc. Chinese wealth with
impunity like Elizabeth I's Sea Dogs. Soon after the "Lady Hughes" incident the view that
entire Chinese legal system was barbaric and sanguinary or there is no law in China become
the dominant representation of China ever since.
The British then engineered Opium Wars for the vengeance of their "Lady Hughes"
humiliation, and set to destroy the last nation denying their piracy and other unscrupulous
deeds on the moral high ground. If history can be any guidance, the Anglo is not going to
stop at smearing Russia; more vicious plot is going to come.
Bernhard over at his blog, Moon of Alabama, is advocating for the poisoning being real,
but being traceable to shellfish poisoning. The Skripals had a shellfish dish at a local
restaurant about 40 minutes prior to their discovery on the park bench. While very serious,
and potentially fatal, if addressed with respiratory and cardiac support in a timely fashion,
this poisoning is survivable.
The toxin involved in classic shellfish poisoning is a naturally occurring
neurotoxin, Saxitoxin, which agent remains toxic even after boiling or steaming, exactly the
food preparation techniques likely to be employed in preparing shellfish for consumption.
This is, indeed, what makes it so pernicious.
That the Brits, primed for lies in aid of the Hate On The Rooskies campaign, lit on their
story is unsurprising. Of course, the denial of the authorities at the hospital that
anyone , the Skripals and the supposedly affected policeman, was suffering from
exposure to a chemical weapon, along with the refusal of Porton Down officials to lend
credence to the hoo haw that this was surely traceable to Novichok series chemical agents
identifiably produced by the Russians kind of shot some holes in the big lies.
Anyway, cast an eye at the post at Moon of Alabama. Bernhard is pretty damn good at
winnowing facts from the chaff of propaganda, and when he makes a mistake, he openly
confesses it instead of doubling down on a falsehood.
"... Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing have been rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards. ..."
"... It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the rebels are about to be defeated. ..."
"... Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message to her traitors and gangsters. ..."
Moving along to the present, we have Prime Minister Theresa May. May has been in serious
trouble, politically speaking. After losses suffered in the recent parliamentary elections, she
is clinging to power and is increasingly unpopular even within her own Conservative Party. So
what do you do when you are in trouble at home? You create a foreign crisis that you have to
deal with. If you are someone as venal as former American President and bottom feeder Bill
Clinton you accomplish that end by firing off a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant
in Sudan and at some mud huts in Afghanistan. If you are Theresa May, you up the ante
considerably, coming up with a powerful enemy who is threatening you, enabling you to appear
both resolute and strong in confronting a formidable foe. That is precisely what we have been
seeing over the past month relating to the alleged poisoning of former Russian intelligence
agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
There is quite a bit that is odd about the Skripal case. Even the increasingly neoconnish
Guardian newspaper has conceded that "the British case [against Russia] has so far relied more
heavily in public on circumstantial evidence and secret intelligence." And secret intelligence,
so called, has all too often been the last refuge of a scoundrel whenever a government is
selling snake oil to the public. In this case, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson rushed to
judgement on Russia less than forty-eight hours after the Skripals were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury England, too soon for any chemical analysis of the alleged poisoning to have
taken place.
Theresa May addressed Parliament shortly thereafter to blame the Kremlin and demand a
Russian official response to the event in 36 hours, even though she had to prevaricate
significantly, saying that the apparent poisoning was "very likely" caused by a made-in-Russia
nerve agent referred to by its generic name Novichok. She nevertheless rallied the backbenchers
in Parliament, who responded with a lot of hearty "Hear! Hear!" endorsements. When Labour
Leader Jeremy Corbyn attempted to slow the express train down by suggesting that it might be
wise to wait in see what the police investigation uncovered, he was hooted down. The British
media was soon on board with a vengeance, spreading the government line that such a highly
sensitive operation would require the approval of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin himself. The
expulsion of Russian diplomats soon followed.
One of the strangest aspects of the Skripal case is what is going on now that daughter Yulia
will soon be out of the hospital and Sergei is no longer in critical condition. A cousin
Viktoria Skripal has offered to fly in from Moscow to provide support for her family, but it is
believed that she will not be able to receive a visa from the British. Russian television aired
a recording of a phone call between the two cousins in which Yulia said that she was
disoriented but improving and that neither she nor her father had suffered permanent damage
from the poisoning. The call ended abruptly and Viktoria Skripal believes that it was scripted
by the British government on a controlled phone line.
Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing
have been rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve
agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards.
As the latest British account of the location of the alleged poison places it on the door
handle of the Scripals' residence, the timetable element is also unconvincing. That means that
the two would have spent three hours, including a stop at a pub and lunch, before succumbing on
a park bench. Military grade nerve agents kill instantly.
A request to have the testing done by the politically neutral Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is in progress, but there is little enthusiasm from the British
side, which does not want a Russian observer to participate in the process. The May government
has already established its own narrative and certainly would have plenty to hide if the whole
affair turns out to be fabricated. And fabricated it might have been as the nerve agent, if it
actually exists, could have been manufactured almost anywhere.
The head of Britain's own chemical weapons facility Porton Down has contradicted claims made
by May, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, and British Ambassador in Moscow Laurie Bristow. The
lab's Chief Executive Gary Aitkenhead has testified that he does not know if the nerve agent
was actually produced in Russia, a not surprising observation as the chemical formula was
revealed to the public in a scientific paper in 1992 and there are an estimated twenty
countries capable of producing it. There are also possible stocks of Novichok remaining in
independent countries that once were part of the Soviet Union, to include Russia's enemy du
jour Ukraine, while a false flag operation by the British themselves, the CIA or Mossad, is not
unthinkable.
The resort to official Orwellian govspeak by the British is remarkable throughout the
process, but is particularly painful reading regarding the treatment of the Skripals' pets, two
guinea pigs and a cat. A spokesman for the Department of the Environment reported that "The
property in Wiltshire was sealed as part of the police investigation. When a vet was able to
access the property, two guinea pigs had sadly died. A cat was also found in a distressed state
and a decision was taken by a veterinary surgeon to euthanize the animal to alleviate its
suffering. This decision was taken in the best interests of the animal and its welfare."
So the presence of squadrons of technicians and cops in the residence did not permit anyone
to take a minute to feed the cat and guinea pigs. And the cat was killed as a purely
humanitarian gesture – it's "best interest" was apparently to die. Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?
Finally, the best argument against the British government's evasions about what took place
in Salisbury on March 4 th remains the question of motive. So the British would have
one believe that Vladimir Putin personally ordered the killing of a former British double agent
who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and who was no longer capable of
doing any damage to Russia. He did that in spite of the fact that he had an election coming up
and would be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an event that he would want to go
smoothly. So he deliberately shot himself in the foot on both counts, allegedly because he
wanted to send a message to traitors and also because just can't help himself since he is a
vindictive KGB type whose impulses are pure evil. Does that make sense to the reader? It
doesn't to me. Mulegino1 ,
April 10,
2018 at 4:49 am GMT
A great man once wrote that the "big lie" had a force of credulity among the broad masses, as
the latter were wont to engage in lying about minor quotidian matters of little or no
significance while the big lies were engaged in by the mainstream press, dominated by the
usual tribal suspects...
But here's something else I don't quite understand:
To be sure, President Donald Trump has been exceptional in that he has followed through
on some of the promises he made in his campaign, insisting periodically that he has to do
what he said he would do. Unfortunately, those choices he has made to demonstrate his
accountability to his supporters have been terrible, including moving the U.S. Embassy in
Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, threatening to end the Iran nuclear agreement and
building a wall along the Mexican border.
Now, Trump is a sense-free random number generator, I will fully agree. But you list three
"choices he has made" that you describe as "terrible:" the US embassy move to Jerusalem, the
threats against Iran, and "building a wall along the Mexican border." The first two Trump has
done, and I agree that "terrible" is the right word to describe them. The third thing -- the
border wall -- he hasn't done. And had he done so, it wouldn't have been
"terrible" it would have been the obvious and sensible thing to do. I think he clearly isn't
serious about building the wall, as far as one can discern the intentions of so random an
individual. But your list presents three items in parallel, with one item being quite unlike
the others.
Logic escapes the rabid Neocons, anti Christian Russia crowd and their paid henchmen, or
henchgirls , the likes of Linda Graham. (Grin) Unfortunatley the now feckless Trump is
going to go along with this British yarn and the Neocon wish of destroying Syria.
BTW as of this post your site has still not recovered from the cyber attack it had
today.
"So the British would have one believe that Vladimir Putin personally ordered the killing of
a former British double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and
who was no longer capable of doing any damage to Russia. He did that in spite of the fact
that he had an election coming up and would be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an
event that he would want to go smoothly. So he deliberately shot himself in the foot on both
counts, allegedly because he wanted to send a message to traitors and also because just can't
help himself since he is a vindictive KGB type whose impulses are pure evil. Does that make
sense to the reader?"
Absolutely. Under the Putin regime, the body count of his enemies has grown. He put the
"de Thirty-four Russian journalists in the last decade just somehow "died". Occam's Razor
applies here.
Consider also that Putin played a major role in the Russian "Deep State".
It makes complete sense if one simply looks at the British Establishment's prior behavior of
intentionally starting world wars at the order of the Society of the Elect. It's all in the
CFR's archives. Their guilt in starting WW1 is emphatically admitted and documented in
roughly the first 200 pages of the following book. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
Who is in the Society of the Elect? Read the back pages of http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is: Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in
2004. Guess that the Russian attitude towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as
mitigating circumstances into account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Good article. The Skipnal affair has been an utter disgrace from day one. May & Boris are
a shame on the UK fully reminesent of that utter dog, Blair. The fact that the msm still
babbles on about Russia & Skipnal is indicative of their monumental contempt for the
public & factual balanced reporting .well what's new, I guess ?
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
These ridiculous, suicidal gas attacks by Assad seem to coincide not only with battleground
victories against the head-choppers, but co-incidentally with Israel's murderous attacks on
unarmed Palestinians "throwing stones".
What nobody seems to have picked up is the emphasis – and red lines – on Gas;
gas, gas attacks. Why is gas so much worse than being dismembered, disembowelled, and
mutilated by high explosives? Certainly I would favour unconsciousness and death by gas
before being smashed to pieces by depleted uranium.
These relentlessly repeated claims are an exercise with the dual purpose of providing a
subliminal message about the greatest tragedy in human history, repeated ad nauseam. The
massive 'gassing' of European Jews some 65 years ago. Lest we forget.
Until some kind of sanity returns to this planet and war mongering gangsters like the Bush
and Clinton Mobs, Blair, Obama and a host of Pentagon generals, along with their boot-licking
MSM are indicted, tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes, found guilty and
sentences carried out, there will be no peace on Earth, just an endless series of False
Flags, hysterical reactions by the ones who were behind the False Flags and more wars.
Balfour already in 1907 announced war against Germany: Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill,
Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world',
New York, 2008, Balfour, to US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49
Because if it is a put up job by the CIA or MI6 part of the plot would have been that they
weren't actually killed. And if the perpetrators were other than those what motive would the
government have for pretending they were alive?
It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the
rebels are about to be defeated.
I am pretty sure that it was not ordered within the British government and that most of
the British government don't know where it came from, but are willing to believe it was
Russia.
While the CIA does have plenty of form on assassinations, the risk if they were found to
be assassinating in Britain seems quite high due to the close CIA links with the UK
intelligence sector. But CIA agents could have paid someone else to do it.
Mossad is the one group that can act freely in the UK, has a record of assassinating
scientists, engineers etc here, and unlike CIA, can take the risk of being caught. So it's a
possibility – OTOH Israel has shown a lot less anti-Russian hatred than the US Deep
State has.
Normally I'd assume it was indeed Russia – I thought there was plenty of evidence
the Polonium poisoning was Russia – and it still seems possible, but US or Mossad must
be at least equally likely in this case. It's just possible it could have been British
initiated but I doubt it.
I do think it's most likely the person who actually poisoned them was not an employee of
any agency.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World
Order...
THANK YOU, anyone who give Chump credit for anything, is either a useful idiot, or
controlled opposition.
Trump is, like Obama and H. Clinton (and Bush and B. Clinton Reagan though total control
of US government had not yet occurred then) a Zionist agent.
The media is very good at giving these traitors cover, Obama was the "peace
President/Constitutional scholar, as he made war and shredded the Constitution...
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria.
Did it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
Churchill advocated both the use of gas as well as terror, so I find it interesting that
so many suddenly tender hearted "officials" and war criminals now affect squeamishness
regarding the use of it, yet fail to condemn Israel for its hideous, terroristic use of white
phosphorous among other crimes
Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War
Office I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas gasses can be used which cause
great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, by
Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in
the late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American
press of the time?
and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since they
control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of
getting snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a
public street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family ,at Gramercy Park in New York
City.
Good article.
Still, you authors need to start digging deeper. Trump and his Allies are putting on an
amazing show / act to distract their ( and Humanities going back generations) hidden enemies.
The Bad Guys have for millennia weoponized information, convincing the public, reporters,
and journalists that the rabbit hole ends here, that they don't need to dig any deeper, to
just accept this slightly deeper layer of the onion. That warm and fuzzy feeling from
scratching just a little deeper into to information matrix, isn't enough anymore. You guys
have the intelligence, experience, and ability just do it please!
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great
message to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to
confiscate the wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~
$10bn worth that will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of
Skripal and runaway oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful
enamourment with England's climate, I don't know what will.
I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was annamaria
who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that Russia wanted
the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
US Treasury Putin List Features Jewish Billionaires Times of Israel
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
I am very fond of the British. They have provided a good deal of what makes the US a healthy
and blessed place to live.
But I will admit that I was disappointed in PM Blair on the Iraq invasion and that of
Afghanistan. It seemed so blatantly obvious to me, that I thought there was no way the prime
minister would buy in. I was wrong. But then who would have believed that the Tory's would
abandon natural relations for same sex relations, muchless marriage.
It's unclear how to respond when the leadership is so afraid that they advance anything to
avoid grappling with hard reality. PM May has the hurdle of guiding Great Britain out of the
EU.
I too noticed that and agree with you. Do not understand why the National Guard can only
serve in a supportive, non-enforcement role on the border. Heck, every nation uses its
military to guard its borders. We need to send our military to guard our border. It's really
very simple–no one can enter the US unless they have been admitted legally.
Another thing I don't understand is how these "sanctuary" cities can so blatantly flout
federal law by sheltering illegals from ICE or any federal law enforcement agencies. If any
city does so, the federal government should put them on notice that ALL federal funds will be
cut off.
He makes great points, and I'm encouraged that he's allowed to do so on to a big and
important audience.
I remember when his predecessor, Bill O'Rielly, claimed to have seen the evidence of
Saddam's WMD, and told his audience, on the run up to war, and I was appalled. As indeed, it
turned out he too was lying.
When the ZUSA was entrenched in the highly profitable war on Vietnam, there seemed to be
no way to end it. Protests in the streets and at the universities, and anger at the war and
war pig$ seemed to no avail.
But then a phenomena began. Fragging.
one wonders .
at seven minutes in, Carlson interviews a senator. The senator does his best to lie and
deceive, as only a ZUS senator can. But Tucker eviscerates him on screen.
now if this senator, and others like him, were themselves put into peril by these
serial, treasonous wars for Israel, would they still be so keen to have Americans die,
slaughtering innocent people- to bolster and benefit the main enemy of America; Israel?
I imagine the parent of a young American, who's life was sacrificed to augment the career
of Lindsey Graham. Or other Americans who're fed up with the endless wars for Israel, and are
willing to do something about the treasonous scum who're demanding and foisting all of these
Satanic wars.
Just as Tucker says, any general who advocates for these wars, should be required to
actually visit a battlefield, so too I wonder about the politicians, and how they eventually
have to go home, and live among their constituents. What if some of the worst of them, like
Graham for instance, were to actually suffer some consequence for all the evil he's done, and
continues to do?
Of course I'm not advocating anything illegal. Just ruminating on potential solutions to
the Eternal Wars for Israel – which are nothing more or less than a continuation of the
first two World Wars (for Israel) duh
END the FED!
(or watch your nation bankrupted and looted and made to die for Israel)
Come on yankee , ( as you say USA is a country of unbridled greed. An insatiable appetite
for blood , land , alcohol ,and loot ) . Just return California , Arizona , New Mexico ,
Florida , Nevada , Utah , Colorado and Louisiana to Mexico , and Alaska to Russia ) , and
then, only then , you can talk .
PS , and do not forget to close the 8OO occupation bases the US has around the world , you
will save a lot of money
The intent of my post was to show that the MSM here is conformist and doesn't like to
stray far from what the USG is claiming and what other journalists are writing. Rather than
explore the topics you raise, as worthy of exploration as they might be, I thought I'd offer
what newspapers around the USA were saying about Saddam's WMD after Powell's UNSC speech;
seems a bit more germane.
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own
people, Iraq's neighbors
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America's most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam's enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein's illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the
equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger
to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell
or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast
his lies to the world. Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one
hearing Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq's
actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the
United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to
initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it
unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion
that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these
efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case
before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each
passing day, Iraq's own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would
prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council,
buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all
doubt that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in
violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one 'smoking gun' but a
battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the
Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last
year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security
Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a
threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N.
resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands
should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
The Skripal affair is better understood in the context of "sir" Savile' knighthood -- when
the influential pedophile had been raping and molesting kids for 40 years and none stood up
to the criminal. The BBC has dutifully refused to publish anything that would upset "sir"
Savile. The Scotland Yard looked the other way -- precisely as the Establishment ordered them
to do. Savile' specialty were orphans. He was the embodiment of British Establishment.
The British Establishment has done with the concepts of honor. The loudest lying voices
against Russia belong either to the whoring "aristocrats," who found that war profiteering
(by any means) pays well, or the opportunistic parvenu like Gavin Williamson representing the
vulgarity and intellectual inadequacy of the Establishment.
the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile
to the American people as any invading army could be."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
and to think that was over a hundred years ago
they've only gotten better at it with time
if you read The Protocols, one thing that I remember was the contemptuous way it referred
to the goyim as having the minds and souls of beasts. Lumbering, mindless cattle, chewing
their cud in a kind of catatonic stupor.
what else can we conclude about the kind of people who would vote for Lindsey Graham or
John McCain? These guys get reelected again and again.
The saddest and most tragic thing about The Protocols is that the goyim seem to be as
accommodating to the Elders as any farm animal can be. At least a pig might be apprehensive
of the trip to the slaughter house. I remember a video where a pig jumped out of a moving
truck, and walked off. But the goyim suit up their children and hand them over as cannon
fodder, to be slaughtered on behalf of their enemies.
In the last century, there may have been an excuse for not knowing the nature of the ZUS
government, being as ((they)) controlled virtually every source of information.
But today it's all out there. Today everybody knows that all of these wars are for Israel,
at the direct expense of America's blood and treasure and (I won't say good) name.
And yet, (especially from the Christian churches) the call to suit up the young people to
die in more wars- slaughtering innocents – for our enemies, will resound in the
nation.
If I were a British soldier, told to kill some Russian soldier, because Putin is Hitler..
as my daughter languishes in a mental hospital, having been gang raped into a shell of a
human being, and my son was brutalized by a British aristocrat, but now I'm called up to kill
Russians in a contrived World War, to benefit the pedophile Peerage and their ((patrons)), I
don't know how I'd resist pointing that weapon away from the Russian, and towards England's
true enemies.
Like a gullible person I at first accepted that there was indeed some event that involved the
Skripals. Now I wonder if the entire thing was a scripted hoax, that nothing had hit them,
that it's all fake. It wouldn't be surprising. We seem to be in an age of rule by sociopaths
whose only compass is that of power and riches. The populations of our countries are being
hustled along for the benefit of the few. This can't have a happy ending for the majority of
people. The much vaunted democracy of the west looks like just a fixed shell game.
The little lie is more difficult because the veracity thereof may be observed. A large lie
or untruth is more difficult to observe. Such as what is visible from outer space is not
something anyone can falsify.
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
"More occupation and killing in Crimea "
-- Evidence? It seems that you are very upset that the Kagans' cookies did not deliver.
"One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia:" https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia
"How Crimeans See Ukraine Crisis:" https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/11/how-crimeans-see-ukraine-crisis/
"A Pew poll from April 2014 revealed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed
the referendum was free and fair, 93 percent had confidence in Putin, and 85
percent believed Kiev should recognize the results.
Another poll in June 2014, this one from Gallup , showed 94 percent of ethnic
Russians in Crimea thought the referendum reflected the views of the people and 68 percent
of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea agreed . The poll found that 74 percent believed
that joining Russia would make life better.
A GfK poll from February 2015, sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian group in Canada, revealed
93 percent of Crimeans endorsed the referendum."
-- Still not enough for you?
"Ukraine [post-Maidan] under pressure from West over corruption:"
http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2017/dec/07/ukraine-under-pressure-from-west-over-corruption-1721487.html
"Enough documents have been released -- citing coup-backed snipers killing dozens of
protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger
airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence -- to make it very clear that the "coup" is
more of an invasion than anything else.
The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown
Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de
facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut
dollie."
The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a
wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United States -- those
faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the
supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide
against the Palestinian people."
"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI,
specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i)."
Bravo, indeed, Annamaria. Beautiful, perfect, resounding, harsh, unforgiving words for a
pair of worthless human vermin masquerading as civilised, intelligent professionals with a
moral compass.
The pair of them – and the entire wide set and grouping of their self-loathing,
White-hating racist political henchmen, hangers-on, groupies, freeloaders and Labour party
pirates and race traitors who have brought my nation to the brink in every possible way
should be publicly hanged and left to rot.
Better still that none of the Moslem-loving filth had ever been born.
"... The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair. ..."
"... The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia. ..."
"... We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk -- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress. ..."
"... we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites. ..."
The diplomats' expulsion flabbergasted the Russians. For days they went around scratching
their heads and looking for an answer: what do they want from us? What is the bottom line? Too
many events that make little sense separately. Why did the US administration expel 60 Russian
diplomats? Do they want to cut off diplomatic relations, or is it a first step to an attempt to
remove Russia from the Security Council, or to cancel its veto rights? Does it mean the US has
given up on diplomacy? (The answer "it's war" didn't come to their minds at that time).
The astonished Russians responded all right. They also expelled 60 diplomats, and they made
it painful: all US diplomats engaged in the political department of the Moscow Embassy were on
the non-grata list. The Political department consisted of three sections, dealing with foreign
policy, internal Russian politics and military analysis; the most important centre of data
collection, of liaison with Russian politicians, of military consequences, of Syria and
Ukraine, of North Korea and China, experienced first-class intelligence officers and field
hands -- all gone, including their Political Officer Christopher Robinson (POL). The Russians
expelled Maria Olson, the Embassy's well-known spokesperson, and the Ambassador's interpreter.
They closed down St Petersburg Consulate, an important centre for connecting, influencing and
interacting with the opposition in this 'second capital' of Russia. The US has lost many of its
Moscow hands, people who knew Russia and had developed personal relations with important
Russians. It will take a lot of time and effort for the US State Department and intelligence
agencies to get back to the positions they had lost. The Brits who initiated the deportations
also lost about fifty of their Moscow Embassy staff.
Surprisingly, the mass deportation of so many Russian diplomats had little effect on the
Russian people, as this strike had been neutralised by another painful event, by the Kemerovo
Mall blaze killing 64 cinema-goers including over 40 children. The blaze, even if it weren't
arson (it has not been proven yet) had triggered a massive onslaught of fake news and internet
trolls on the people of Russia. A million underfed Ukrainians were deployed by the Western
psywar on the web to tell the Russians that hundreds of their children had been incinerated,
and that their authorities lie to them. This operation revealed the level of influence and
integration the Western spy agencies have in Russia.
Kemerovo was a good choice for the operation: it is the only ethnic-Russian region ruled by
an old-style local hero who had outlived his wits, the only region that reported indecently
(and unrealistically) high support for Putin in the recent elections, a depressive region of
mines and miners with a big potential for trouble.
Putin managed it rather well by coming personally and dealing with the situation hands on.
He learned the ropes since 2000, when, at the dawn of his first presidential term, the
Kursk submarine went down with all hands. Putin stayed away from the sailors'
families, and acted callous, people said. "It had sunk", Putin replied to the question "What
happened to Kursk ?" (It is said USS Memphis had fired a torpedo at the
submarine, causing the disaster, while the new president had been reluctant to aggravate
relations with Clinton Administration). Now, in 2018, he was very good, full of empathy and
consideration, conveying strength and decisiveness.
Whatever American agency carried out the psyop around Kemerovo, it was very successful, but
its success undermined another operation, that of the Russian diplomats' expulsion. The
Russians did not pay it sufficient attention.
The alleged reason for the expulsion, the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, made
very little sense. Even if the old spy were bumped off by his erstwhile employers, such a
reaction would be excessive by all means. He was not a Napoleon (poisoned by the Brits 200
years ago), not a prince of blood, not a great inventor nor a successful spy. He was a retired
ex-spy, a wash-out. Anyway he didn't die, he was just sick for a while. Perhaps he ate
something in the pub that didn't agree with him. This is the opinion of his niece, Victoria,
who is the only person alive who had been in contact with the Skripals since their alleged
hospitalisation.
This affair is so obscure that it beats Rashomon anytime. Russian reporters went around
Salisbury and noticed many incongruences. It is not certain whether Skripals were poisoned at
all, and where they are. Their pets survived the deadly poison, and they had to be destroyed.
This piece of black Russian humour had been forwarded a lot around the net:
Skripal had been poisoned by a most powerful poison, 2 grams will kill half a country
instantly! The Russians
- poisoned him in the restaurant
- no, on the bench
- no, in the car
- No, the door handle was smeared
- No, the suitcase was poisoned
- No, everything in the house was poisoned.
- Oh, and buckwheat was poisoned,
- but they did not die instantly, but walked around somewhere for four hours,
- but the policeman that discovered them almost died on the spot,
- but the poison was instantly identified,
- an antidote was instantly introduced, and Skripals and the policeman were saved;
- The policeman had been discharged next day!
- But they were in coma, and they will never recover!
- but no, the daughter had recovered fast!
- Oh, and dad is revived a miracle!
- and they both are quickly recovering, your strongest poison is useless.
- the restaurant had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the park had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the house had surrounded by police in spacesuits
- they are in spacesuits, since the poison is deadly dangerous, but next to them are
policemen without protection
- The bench was cut down and removed: it's such a terrible poison that the bench retained
its toxic quality for two weeks;
- but the cat had survived in the poisoned house the policeman had touched Skripal and
nearly died, and the cat survived and the guinea pigs would survive, but they were all
forgotten, and died of hunger in the house;
- and their remains were immediately burned, as they are poisoned by the strongest
poison;
- For two weeks they were poisoned by the strongest poison and survived, and now they had to
be urgently cremated;
- Only guinea pigs died, the cat survived all this poison. It was stressful and hungry, so
they killed it and cremated to make it certain nobody will find the secret etc etc.
The true hero of Skripal saga is the British ex-Ambassador Craig Murray , who followed the
developments and unveiled many of its inconsistencies and outright lies. You may read his
articles and twits to learn the details.
Julia Skripal took a daring step: she called her cousin Viktoria in Moscow. Their
conversation is an amazing document. Julia says that she and her father are in good health;
she doubts Viktoria will be allowed to visit her. Indeed, the British government refused to
grant her visa. The feeling is that Julia is imprisoned.
I spoke with a retired Russian counter-intelligence officer who is familiar with the
subject. He told me Russia never had a Novichok toxic substance: this name was given by
counter-intelligence to A-232 in order to trace the leaks. It worked: a man called Vil
Mirzayanov, an administrator in the chemical labs, leaked the Novichok story, and thus he was
apprehended and arrested. A-232 had been produced in small amounts in 1990s, and some of it
could be stolen and sold in these horrible years, when a full colonel of Russian intelligence
had to moonlight as a taxi driver to supplement his measly $46 monthly salary. In those years,
the poison could be indeed made available, and in one case it was used by criminals.
Theoretically it is not impossible that some of this poison could have been saved and stored by
some criminals; alternatively, it was available to the Americans who dismantled the labs in
1992. Anyway we have no independent proof that Skripals were poisoned by anything at all. If
they survive, if the British and the American intelligence services don't kill them, perhaps we
shall know more. We can definitely exclude the possibility that Russian state agents would go
to Britain to poison an old spy who had been pardoned by Russian president years ago. Even if
he was active in producing Christopher Steele's Trump ("Golden Rain") file, the Russians would
have no compelling reason to kill him at all, and in such an odd way in particular. "If we
would kill him, he would stay killed", concluded my interlocutor.
The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our
understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning
and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often
unfair.
The connection between chemical poisoning and Russia had been prepared for the forthcoming
event. Eastern Ghouta was an important and well entrenched location of the Syrian rebels. Being
within easy reach from Central Damascus, it provided the rebels with a chance to seize power in
the Syrian capital. As the Syrian army with Iranian and Russian support advanced into Eastern
Ghouta, they learned of the rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical weapon attack, as they
already had done a few times in past. President Putin warned of such a possibility at his joint
(with President Erdogan and President Rouhani) press conference in Ankara last week, a few days
before the alleged attack.
The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media.
Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical
weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia.
We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers
and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went
for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a
long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk
-- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its
fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such
a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall
of a Syrian underground fortress.
The planners of a war on Russia have utilised fear of anti-Semitism for their purposes. I
called this method Anti-semitism Weaponised . Jeremy
Corbyn, the Labour leader, has been blocked and contained by accusations of anti-Semitism. He
was the only leader able to stop Britain's descent into war with Russia. Other Labour MPs and
activists have been attacked over alleged anti-Semitism issue, and -- what a coincidence! --
practically all of them were against demonising Russia; while Friends of Israel -- whether
Conservative or Labour -- were viciously anti-Russian.
This is a correlation that will be discussed at another time, but it is far from obvious
one. Russia has no anti-Semitism; the Russian president is friendly to Israel and to the
powerful Jewish Chabad movement. Russia
has no white nationalism, and little of the alt-right. However, this correlation exists. Shall
we explain it by Jewish hatred of the Orthodox Church, as this Church (active in Russia,
Greece, Palestine and Syria) hasn't been Jewified. Or should we prefer a more simple
explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the
goals of these elites.
However, people who can withstand accusations of anti-Semitism are the strongest enemies of
the ruling power; they stand against the war with Russia and against attack on Syria, as the
Haaretz newspaper explained in an article called
White Supremacists Defend Assad, Warn Trump: Don't Let Israel Force You Into War With Syria
. The article continues: "Alt-right calls Saturday's chemical attack in Damascus suburb a false
flag operation, claiming it's an effort by Israel and 'globalists' to keep U.S. troops in
Middle East" It quotes David Duke and other untouchables as the only people who reject Israeli
narrative.
Not being a white supremacist (probably I do not qualify) I still applaud these brave men
when they say and do the right thing. Sensitivity to anti-Semitism accusation is a strong
vulnerability of character. Though people like Corbyn have their heart in the right place, they
are weak on this point, and the enemy uses this weakness to neutralize them. There are people
in the left that are not afraid of any accusation, but there aren't many who are resistant to
metum Judaeorum .
Let us hope and pray we shall survive the forthcoming cataclysm.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World Order...
"... "The primary conclusion of this study, based on a pharmacological analysis of the video and photographic evidence, is that the Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21.2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad." ..."
"Murder in the Sun Morgue" by Dr. Denis O'Brien (neuropharmacology expert):
"The primary conclusion of this study, based on a pharmacological analysis of the
video and photographic evidence, is that the Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21.2013 was
not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt
carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use
their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad."
Like a Medieval inquisition bereft of any due legal process, Russia is being put on the rack
over the mysterious poisoning of a former Kremlin spy exiled to Britain.
No evidence is presented, just piles of innuendo and Russophobia heaped up into a bonfire.
The prosecution is based solely on pejorative accusations, and the accused – Russia
– is not permitted to fairly contest the incriminating information.
This is the same playbook as seen over alleged Russian "meddling" in the US and European
elections over the past two years. Western politicians, intelligence services, think-tanks and
media are chock-full of allegations and innuendo of "Russian influence campaigns". But no
evidence is ever presented. Not a scrap, not a scintilla. It's a case of presumed guilt, and a
conviction verdict without any facts.
It's the same inquisitorial echo stemming from the unsolved downing of the Malaysian
airliner in July 2014 over Eastern Ukraine, killing nearly 300 people. Recall how British media
were within days of that tragedy irresponsibly peddling disgraceful headlines claiming "Putin
shot down passenger airliner".
This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May's
addressed parliament accusing Moscow of responsibility for the alleged murderous attack on
former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the southern England town of Salisbury on
March 4.
Far from the Skripal father and daughter being the alleged victims of a Russian
assassination plot, it now seems increasingly apparent that they are being held against their
will by Britain's authorities. In short, hostages of the British state.
From the outset of the alleged poisoning incident in Salisbury on March 4, the official
British narrative has been pocked suspiciously with inconsistencies. The lightning-fast rush to
judgment by the British government – within days – to blame the Kremlin for "a
brazen murder attempt" was perhaps the main giveaway that the narrative was following a script
and foregone conclusion to incriminate Russia.
May be a more correct hypothesis that explains Trump behaviour in Skripal case and Douma supposed gas attack is that Trump was a false flag from the beginning. Being a
newcomer to politics he, like Obama before him, was a perfect bait and switch" candidate.
Hillary statement that he is "unfit for office" proved to be true, but in a different sense then
Hillary implied: in foright policy he proved to be copycat of Hillary, save sex change
operation.
Notable quotes:
"... One month after that attack, which Prime Minister Theresa May ascribed to Russia and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson laid at the feet of Putin himself, questions have arisen: If the nerve agent used, Novichok, was of a military variety so deadly it could kill any who came near, why is no one dead from it? Both the target, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia are recovering. ..."
"... If the deadly poison was, as reported, put on the doorknob of Skripal's home, how did he and Yulia manage to go to a restaurant after being contaminated, with neither undergoing a seizure until later on a park bench? ..."
"So Donald Trump turns out to be a pretty good liar, even if one has to take into account the fact that he frequently has no idea
what he is talking about. But the prize for lying at a high level has to go to the British as related to what has been going on both
in the Middle East, with Russia, and also in Britain itself. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was the first master at dissimulation
in 2002 when his intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove told him that the Bush White House had decided on war and "the intelligence
and facts were being around the policy" regarding Iraq, meaning that it was ignoring the information that did not support its desire
to create a pretext for invading the country and removing Saddam Hussein. Blair presumably could have derailed the ill-fated invasion
by refusing to go along with the venture, which was a war crime, but instead he fully supported George W. Bush in the attack and
thereby had a hand in America's worst foreign policy disaster ever. In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that
Bush and Blair had indeed together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless
rewarded Tony Blair for his loyalty with Clintonesque generosity.
He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is now worth in excess of $100 million." Giraldi
I honestly don't understand why people refuse to acknowledge that we in the West are ruled either by sociopaths, or by people
who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths.
This is nothing unique to the United States. Every empire and its rulers were ever thus. What is different is that the American
Empire is larger and more universal in scope and has more tools of propaganda, control, surveillance and destruction at its fingertips
than a Stalin or a Genghis Khan ever dreamed of.
Hubris and sociopathy explain all of the actions that the American Empire has taken to date, and explain what the Empire will
do next.
Has the US brass succumbed to ziocons?
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
The main questions on the social media: "Why the US is in Syria?" and "Is a war in Syria in America's interests?"
That is what they say. I will believe when I see a video footage with her in it. Even then I
will not believe 100%. We should never forget that we deal with evil pathological liars, crooks
and swindlers.
This part of the statement of Dr. Blanshard, medical director of Salisbury hospital, is
remarkable:
"While I won't go into great detail about the treatment we've been providing, I will say
that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then
stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness,
hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise
them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to
circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until
they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used
specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins."
There was no need for her to go in detail about Julia's recovery, but she did, and what
she says fits much more a food poisoning from fish or shellfish than a military nerve agent.
The bombshell is at the end. "Toxin" is a poison generated by a plant or animal, i.e. a
biological poison. Novichok is no toxin. Doctors are used to formulate careful and
precise.
In my eyes this statement is a slap in the face of the British government and its Novichok
story and a sign that it's going to collapse soon.
Hallucinations is it?
"Nerve agents work by attaching themselves to the particular enzymes in the body, which then
stop the nerves from functioning. This results in symptoms such as sickness and
hallucinations. Our job in treating the patients is to stabilise them, ensuring that they can
breathe and blood can continue to circulate."
I was very skeptical at first, but I've come to regard something food-related as most
likely, like people here at the MoA have proposed. 'b' plus I think 'Jen', is that her
name?
It struck me as conspicuous that Blanshard wouldn't just state what substance exactly they
were dealing with, if said substance was indeed some manufactured military nerve agent. But
since the British government have flung their reputation and credibility down Big Ben by
coming up with this Novichok nonsense, Blanshard can't say anything other than what she did
say.
Also there's no mention of 'poisoning', 'attack' or some such term, which would indicate a
perpetrator actively and intentionally bringing the Skripals into contact with the substance.
It's just 'incident'. Adding to that, the phrase "have been exposed to" suggests
'environmental' to me, and that's what food-borne is.
"... Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, who's skepticism convinced 165 countries to not fall for Boris Johnson's lies, says that Johnson has to answer "serious questions". The spin-masters of the May government throw Novi-Fog™ into Fleet Street to prevent that. ..."
"... Operation 'Save Boris' fills the Fleet Street papers with more lies. It claims that secret intelligence, which can not even be shown to the opposition leader, proves that Russia tested how to smear the nerve agent 'Novichok' on doorknobs ..."
"... Theresa May's government is in serious trouble. It tries to spin its way out of its lies. But the time is working against it. The fog will rise ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor--a mortal sin. ..."
"... The Telegraph today answered critics that are demanding proof , saying that no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof is required because governments are not held to that standard. So what standard should a government be held to a) by other governments? And b) by the people that they represent? They didn't bother to say but the impression I got is "trust us". They are tone deaf. Public trust is worn thin. Do they think we have forgotten being lied into Iraq? Their incessant spying and propaganda? Western support for ISIS criminality? Clinton-DNC collusion? And much more! ..."
"... I would guess the Skripals and the policeman would have a full time minder at their sides to ensure they say nothing that busts the narrative. ..."
"... It might have been pesticide poisoning . If doctors guessed correctly they would have been able to treat it. Pesticide poisoning happens a lot by accident in rural households. ..."
"... Novichok shares characteristics with pesticides so laboratory results may very well be something that can be a pesticide - or Novichok. ..."
"... Good reminder that we fight bees with a "military grade weapon". ..."
"... reminded me of the passport that survived the 9/11 twin towers attack in the USA. ..."
"... I think bevin's correct--Brexit, Corbyn and further vilification of Russia are the motives driving this SNAFU. ..."
"... Russia convened an OPCW Special Executive Council meeting in The Hague on April 4, for "addressing the situation around allegations of non-compliance with the Convention made by one State Party against the other State Party with regard to the incident in Salisbury" on March 4. . . here ..."
"... This is a post by a novelist (red flag, I know) with obv. no credibility that claims that Novichok was in fact the name of a KGB operation to locate leakers in their chemical research staff by feeding disinfo about a chemical super-weapon, and that Mirzayanov (an analytical chemist not directly involved in research or production) was ID'd as a leaker as a result, and turned into a disinfo dispenser. ..."
"... The Skripals apparently ordered seafood risotto at Zizzi's Restaurant in Salisbury. If you look up Zizzi's Restaurant menus on Google, you will see the menus mention risotto with mussels. ..."
"... Mussels can carry algae-related toxins that can cause (among other things) nausea, vomiting and (depending on the toxin involved) even brain damage, memory loss and death. Usually the symptoms set in about half an hour after eating so knowing when the Skripals had lunch and when they arrived at the park bench is critical. ..."
"... The grechka is problematic - how did the policeman get ill? ..."
"... The guinea pigs died from thirst? You'd think if there was nerve gas contamination in the house somewhere, thirst would be the last thing they'd die of. ..."
"... If police had visited the house on March 4, immediately or almost immediately after the Skripals were found, surely they would have found the animals in good condition? Sergei Skripal had apparently had the animals brought over from Russia at considerable expense to himself. One assumes he must have been quite attached to them. Yet when the animals are found, they are malnourished and starving or dead from thirst? ..."
"... So what was DS Nick Bailey doing if he didn't go to the house on March 4? When was he stricken with nerve gas poisoning? ..."
"... Its a common Western practice to point finger to enemies military or research facility. They win regardless of circumstances. ..."
"... Only two words: perfidious Albion... always was and always will be. And this is how the west spins off into the dustbin of history... the newbie way. ..."
"... Folks, the reason for all this anti-Putin nonsense is the one fact that the Syrian government now holds over 11 British officers who were liaised with the terrorists in the Ghouta. ..."
"... And they were caught out of uniform, such that they could be executed as spies under international law. Isn't that a howler?" ..."
"... What sort of libretto would Gilbert and Sullivan compose for this fiasco. Could The Onion do better? Reminds me of Cheech & Chong's skits. ..."
"... If all dogs of wars are now unleashed following some absurd false flag as murky and grotesque as the Skippy affair... we, as human species, are absolutely doomed to live in hell for quite sometimes. ..."
"... The only thing that has been officially confirmed is that blood tests showed breakdown products of organophosphates that were believed to come from a "Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." I still do not think they have found novichok anywhere in the environment or have collected a sample that could be independently verified to be novichok in some foreign laboratory. At least we have not seen any official confirmation that such a sample exists. Nor have we received information on exactly what compound this "novichok" is claimed to be. ..."
"... I suspect the traces of "novichok" found all over the place, from the Zizzi restaurant to the door handle, are just some ordinary organophosphate pesticide. ..."
"... The Skripals are suffering from "paralytic shellfish poisoning" they received from saxitoxin or tetrodotoxin in the seafood in the Risotto Pesce they ate at the Zizzi restaurant. The Skripals received traces of some organophosphate pesticide from the flowers they left at the graves in the morning. They then left trace on the door handles of the BMW. A video show the BMW driving away from Sergei Skripl's house at 14:55 in the afternoon. This would mean that they visited the house after leaving the pub and entering the Zizzi restaurant, leaving further organophosphate traces on the door knob of the house. ..."
"... Thanks 'B' for keeping the torch lit and shine thru the british lies .. it is so lame and amateurish and i agree for years these propagandist been doing their job the 'easy way' and now they been exposed by the still thinking crowd in the net.. ..."
"... This would suggest that if the breakfast cereal brought to the UK from Russia for Sergei Skripal is tested for "Novichok", it will also test positive for traces of "Novichok". (Unless of course Lord President Vlademort rids the entire Russian Federation of all its agricultural pests with a magnanimous wave of his hand and the utterance of a secret spell.) ..."
A pity endeavor. It were the lies of Theresa May and Boris Johnson that
convinced the other countries , not any factual evidence:
BERLIN (Reuters) - Britain needs to show proof that Russia was behind last month's poisoning of a former Russian double agent
and his daughter in England, the German government's coordinator for Russia said on Thursday.
Gernot Erler said pressure was rising on Prime Minister Theresa May's government after Britain's military research centre,
at Porton Down, said on Tuesday it could not say yet whether the nerve agent used in the attack had been produced in Russia.
" That contradicts what we had previously heard from British politicians and will certainly raise the pressure on Britain to
show further proof that the traces plausibly point to Moscow ," Erler told German broadcaster ARD.
Armin Laschert, head of Germany's most populous state North Rhine-Westphalia and near to Merkel, also
questioned the British
behavior.
The international loss of trust for the British claims is serious. Unless the UK government comes up with a very plausible story
with some real evidence behind it no serious European official will lend it any further support. And no, holding up a tube of white
powder will not be enough.
Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, who's skepticism convinced 165 countries to not fall for Boris Johnson's lies,
says that Johnson has to answer "serious questions".
The spin-masters of the May government throw Novi-Fog™ into Fleet Street to prevent that.
Operation 'Save Boris' fills the Fleet Street papers with more lies. It claims that secret intelligence, which
can not even be shown to the opposition
leader, proves that Russia
tested how to smear the nerve agent 'Novichok' on doorknobs:
Police said last week they believed Russian ex-double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned at home in Salisbury
via their front door.
Now agents have confirmed that Putin's scientists carried out experiments looking at its effectiveness on door handles before
the March 3[sic!] attack.
A security source told the Daily Mail: "We have intelligence that goes beyond Russia made Novichok and stockpiled it.
" We have evidence that they also explored using it as an assassination weapon including on areas such as door handles and
everyday objects. "
"Putin's scientists" experimented and found that two persons leaving a home will both touch the exterior doorknob and reliably
infect themselves with a rain-resistant, "military grade" nerve agent which several hours later has a similar sudden effect on a
33 year old healthy women and a 66 year old man with serious diabetes. That indeed sounds quite plausible to me (not).
The Times was told that the spies found the source of the nerve agent. But the piece is extremely vague and makes little
sense:
There are two different sources: 1. "Security services" which say they know the source but neither name it, nor pin the location
to Russia and 2. a Whitehall spin-master who points to Russia.
Some photo editor made sense of what the "security services" said and introduced the Times piece with a picture of the
likely source:
Behind the wall of Novi-Fog™ all
the outrageous claims the government made about the case get pushed down the memory hole.
Meanwhile Victoria Skripal, a cousin of Yulia Skripal,
claims
to have been called by Yulia and told that everything is fine. In response(?) the Metropolitan Police
claims to have a statement from Yulia in which she also says that everything is fine. Neither claim is verifiable and both might
well be wrong.
Theresa May's government is in serious trouble. It tries to spin its way out of its lies. But the time is working against
it. The fog will rise:
The OPCW investigation, to which Russia was denied access, will not help May to make a case against Russia. In the best case
for May it will come up with a similar result as Porton Down. It might say that some nerve agent was used on the Skripals but
that it is impossible to pin it to a source. It might say that it can not identify the nerve agent at all. It may find nothing.
Yulia Skripal will have to be released from hospital and is likely to fly home to Russia. She will talk. She is unlikely to
know anything that could help May, but might well say something that lets the whole story fall apart. She will have to watch her
back.
Britain's allies are miffed. They have been lied to and damaged their relations with Russia for no good reason. The Brexit
negotiations will become more difficult as Brussels has lost trust in any British claim or commitment.
Russia will continue to attack May while she has lost the protection from her allies.
The upcoming local elections could well go against the Tories. In 2004 the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar blamed the Basque
ETA for the Madrid train bombing. That was exposed as a lie and
he lost his lead in the polls, the election and his job. When the Skripal case broke and was pinned to Russia the Tories rose
in the polls. But the fall after the exposure of the lies will probably be of equal size.
What will the British government to get out of this situation?
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the Skripal case:
d notice
simple and effective. It has a chilling effect
the gladio diversion crew productions have moved on today it is the knife crime menace in london.all contained on the salisbury
front no dissent in the media places that count.
Thanks for continuing to hammer on this perfidy by the British puppets and their masters.
At the end of your posting you asked what the British government will do to get out of this situation and I can only expect
them to try and top the situation with something to shift focus and so it has to be Huuuuuuge....and not likely in a good way....sigh
When do the aliens come in and save us from our species stupidity?
The Telegraph today answered critics that are demanding proof , saying that no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof is required
because governments are not held to that standard. So what standard should a government be held to a) by other governments? And
b) by the people that they represent? They didn't bother to say but the impression I got is "trust us". They are tone deaf. Public
trust is worn thin. Do they think we have forgotten being lied into Iraq? Their incessant spying and propaganda? Western support
for ISIS criminality? Clinton-DNC collusion? And much more!
The link to Sputnik has a link to the video of the Russian
TV show but no English subtitles. Is the an English transcription anywhere? According to the transcription of the recorded conversation,
it is Yulia initiated the phone call and I would think it was the UK that recorded the call and sent it to Russian TV. I would
guess the Skripals and the policeman would have a full time minder at their sides to ensure they say nothing that busts the narrative.
The link to Sputnik has a link to the video of the Russian TV show but no English subtitles. Is the an English transcription
anywhere?
According to the transcription of the recorded conversation, it is Yulia initiated the phone call and I would think it was the
UK that recorded the call and sent it to Russian TV. I would guess the Skripals and the policeman would have a full time minder
at their sides to ensure they say nothing that busts the narrative.
As said before, no #Novichok was used. The Skripals could recover.Now the relative in Moskow asked, what was the order in the
restaurant Zizzi. I think it was severe illness after Meal mess. Toad in the Pond? Not on the list of Zizzi.
The British police have finally started a proper investigation. It has had immediate results, when absolute proof of Russia's
involvement was found under the bench where the Skirpals fell unconscious.
The cracks are starting to show. No evidence. No serious facts. We continue on regardless pumping out the big lies.....Do they
think we don't remember Tony Blair on Iraq, the rush into Afghanistan, the wilful destruction of Libya, which once had the highest
human development index in Africa, the near destruction of Syria triggering a huge migrant crisis. The HMG view on all of these
has been an inversion of the truth. I stopped beleiving anything any British government says to me after Iraq, and my default
setting on this affair was 'false flag'. The Russian ambassador was given over ninety minutes of airtime this afternoon on Sky
and acquitted himself very well, posing, to a Brit, very logical and sensible questions. When is he going to move Writ of Habeus
Corpus for the Skripals? The guy has quite a sense of humour and the irony would be sublime...
So there we were after 1 month waiting for a man with a name and a job title to actually say it was Novichok, and finally one
came along presented as the head of Porton Down.
He heads up dstl, not Porton Down, but the holding group that owns Porton Down
His background is Telecoms not chemistry, and commercial not scientific.
He left the private sector to joined dstl only in December 2017 - barely got his feet behind the desk
Shame Sky didn't bother to ask if he works in Porton Down - I doubt he does.
Even greater shame no one has asked for a chemist from Porton Down to speak up. Maybe Corbyn will ask that, but right now the
pro-Israel lobby is flat out to shut him up in case he mentions Palestine.
So, let me get this straight in my head for once. The Brits 'knew' even before this incident that Russia had been experimenting
with doorknobs as delivery agents of this novichok stuff, yet it took them weeks, and dozens of alternate theories, to yell 'eureka,
I finally have it. I'll go test the doorknobs now.'
It were the lies of Theresa May and Boris Johnson that convinced the other countries, not any factual evidence...
______________________________________________
True enough, but I think it's more correct to say that the lies coerced the other countries rather than "convinced"
them.
That is, they weren't "convinced" in the sense of "rationally persuaded". They were "convinced" the way fictional Mafia Don
"convinced" stubborn or reluctant parties by "making them an offer they can't refuse".
As I say, perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. I suppose that if one tells lies while twisting one's interlocutor's
arm sharply, the interlocutor may be "convinced" as much by the pain as the merits of the lies.
I think the feckless response is driven by seeing the handwriting on the wall, not necessarily believing what's being written.
btw - the un speech from the uk and usa were ridiculous... someone ought to get a manuscript of there words earlier today at the
un special meeting on this and tear them apart... ripe for the taking...
It might have been pesticide
poisoning . If doctors guessed correctly they would have been able to treat it. Pesticide poisoning happens a lot by accident
in rural households.
The binary versions of the agents reportedly uses acetonitrile and an organic phosphate "that can be disguised as a pesticide
precursor."
Mirzayanov gives somewhat different structures for Novichok agents in his autobiography to those which have been identified
by Western experts.[53] He makes clear that a large number of compounds were made, and many of the less potent derivatives
were reported in the open literature as new organophosphate insecticides,[54] so that the secret chemical weapons program could
be disguised as legitimate pesticide research.
Good reminder that we fight bees with a "military grade weapon".
Boris needs to grow a brain. "28 other countries have been so convinced..." is a pretty limp-wristed claim to brag about
when one considers that if the evidence was overwhelmingly Q.E.D. then 194 other countries would be convinced. And Boris could
just STFU and wouldn't need to say anything.
Thank you anonymous #9. I was expecting a mushroom and that reminded me of the passport that survived the 9/11 twin towers
attack in the USA.
These malign fools are klutzes and for that we should be either thankful or terrified. My first thought on reading b's headline
was a rough Brexit will follow.
So, a tad more than 10% of the countries in the world are going along with this provocation. But, as when Ms. Clinton recently
stated that she "won" in all the districts that matter (tripling down on driving that wedge between the "Party of the People"
and the actual people), the countries that are playing along are the only ones that matter.
Meanwhile: Syria, Ukraine, Israeli slaughtering of unarmed protesters and passing laws to "finish 1948," Turkey, Honduras,
Venezuela, Brazil (coup regime set to imprison second former leftist President), mass labor unrest in France, 3 US States school
systems shut down by wild cat strikes, etc. etc. etc.
The only Truth being ascertained in this SNAFU are the lies being unmasked. The diatribes by UK/US "ambassadors" at UNSC are utterly
inane compared to Russian rationality. Germany's essentially said UK's provided zero evidence to back its very serious accusations
and the vast majority of the world agrees. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and both the UK and Outlaw
US Empire are guilty of casting Big Lies very often to further their Imperialistic Outlaw behavior since 1945--and that's precisely
what's being done now.
I think bevin's correct--Brexit, Corbyn and further vilification of Russia are the motives driving this SNAFU.
The OPCW Director has said that "The mandate of the FFM [Fact-Finding Mission] is confined to establishing only the fact of the
use of chemical weapons" and not to determine accountability. But the recent meeting on April 4 was to consider the UK charges
against Russia, which had EU and US backing.
from a document....
Russia convened an OPCW Special Executive Council meeting in The Hague on April 4, for "addressing the situation around
allegations of non-compliance with the Convention made by one State Party against the other State Party with regard to the incident
in Salisbury" on March 4. . . here
No doubt Mr. Johnson's remarks were considered and proof demanded. There has been no report on the meeting yet, which should
show up
here .
Hi MoA, I wanted to share a funny but tinfoil-y theory that came up on the Russian web very early in the Skripal affair. Briefly,
that Novichok was a bogus gas and a KGB psy op to begin with.
This is a post by a novelist (red flag, I know) with obv. no credibility that claims that Novichok was in fact the name
of a KGB operation to locate leakers in their chemical research staff by feeding disinfo about a chemical super-weapon, and that
Mirzayanov (an analytical chemist not directly involved in research or production) was ID'd as a leaker as a result, and turned
into a disinfo dispenser.
Literally a conspiracy theory (also might be unironic disinfo in itself), but just think how absolutely fucking hilarious it
would be if it turned out that (a) novichok really is bogus and (b) without knowing that, the Brits tried a false flag with what
they thought was a hype Russian superpoison but was actually rubbish unable of killing a 66 y.o. diabetic.
Also, it does kinda play into OPCW's continued refusal to add Novichok to their CW list, despite years of Mirzayanov's advocacy
and even having the formulas.
Posting translation below:
"The tail has wagged the god:
Don't ask for my source, won't give it away anyway. Everything written below is vastly different from what you can find online.
'1. As far back as the early 1980's the Soviet Army stopped considering [chemical weapons] as a worthwhile weapon in a real
war. Around 83-84 a decision was made to stop supplying the army with CWs, decreasing operational stocks of it and moving CW from
the armed forces to long-term storage and weapon disposal facilies. From that time to 1996 no new CW items were supplied to the
army, as well as no instruction materials on usage or defense against them.
2. Mirzoyanov's specialty is analytical chemistry, he was never involved in neither theoretical R&D nor production. He spent
the entire 80's in the First Department.
3. In the second half of the 80's KGB launched a wide-scale disinformation operation, which also had a side objective - expose
leaks. They developed two dozen bogus but very detailed projects for "new chemical superweapons, which cannot be detected by existing
NATO dectors and which is impossible to defend against" (NOVA with its variants, "Novichok" with variants, ASD and others). It
was "Novichok" that passed through Mirzoyanov's hands.
4. R&D and production facility in Kantyubek was reoriented from testing and producing CW and BO [military equipment?] to producing
herbicides and defoliants - mainly for the cotton industry's needs.
5. Mirzoyanov was immediately identified as a leaker, removed from any materials with a real basis behind them in 1990, and
fed a disinformation channel since. In '92 he voluntarily exposed himself by publishing his famous article. Form this moment on
"Novichok" reaches the realm of mass media. In '95 NYT writes about the "new Russian superweapon."
6. NATO had spent $10 bln. creating countermeasures for a fake CW.
7. What really happened in Salisbury is absolutely unclear; the victims' behavior, the actions of the police, medics, or special
services doesn't all fit into a comprehensible picture. Poisoning by a synthetic neurotoxin, analogous to that of the fugu fish,
seems more or less probable.
Summarizing briefly: "Novichok" is not the name of a chemical weapon, but a KGB operation cypher, developed to expose leaks
and feed disinformation.'"
The Skripals apparently ordered seafood risotto at Zizzi's Restaurant in Salisbury. If you look up Zizzi's Restaurant menus
on Google, you will see the menus mention risotto with mussels.
Mussels can carry algae-related toxins that can cause (among other things) nausea, vomiting and (depending on the toxin
involved) even brain damage, memory loss and death. Usually the symptoms set in about half an hour after eating so knowing when
the Skripals had lunch and when they arrived at the park bench is critical.
Unfortunately the table where the Skripals had lunch has now been destroyed. The park bench has been removed from the shopping
mall and who knows what state it's in now?
Also what appears to have been ignored in the official account is whether the Skripals had lunch on their own or if there was
someone else with them at the cemetery, at the restaurant, at the pub or later in the shopping mall. That someone need not have
accompanied them to all four spots where they went on March 4.
I agree with just about everyone here one way or another, but propaganda works and they have the media - they are scoring points.
I watched the Security Counsel meeting this afternoon and I must say the Russians did not do themselves any favors, he was
rambling, sputtering and all over the map. Did not even mention that this agent can be made in many places and other details.
The British argument was polished and thorough, it will convince a great many.
They have lost much but not all of their control of the narrative.
What's really funny and sad is how the story keeps changing.
Do a search for Skripal poisoning and read through the first 2 or 3 pages - you'll see that at various times, it is the Skripal's
car door handle, then it is their house door handle, then it is in their buckwheat (grechka).
The car door is problematic - it was raining.
The house door is problematic - since when do both people leaving both grasp the door handle? Unless maybe they're OCD.
The grechka is problematic - how did the policeman get ill?
Seems pretty weak all around, especially now that Porton Down has specifically stated that there is no evidence of manufacture
in Russia.
(Reuters) - A Russian military research base was identified as the source of the nerve agent used in Salisbury, England,
at a British intelligence briefing for the country's allies, the Times of London reported on Thursday.
The gathering was used to persuade world leaders that Moscow was behind the poisoning and said that the Novichok chemical
was produced at the Shikhany facility in southwest Russia, the Times said. The briefing included suggestions that Shikhany
had been used during the past decade to test whether the nerve agent could be utilized for assassinations abroad, the newspaper
said.
The Guardian made the
same
claim already on March 14th. I do not know if there is any real information or even guesswork here. Both Britain and Russia
may have only one chemical weapons research facility each.
So now the standard has been lowered to a "plausible" connection to Russia. That allows for wild conjecture that will leave the
public even more confused and, ultimately, disinterested. The term "Novi-fog" well describes the Tories' desperate effort to escape
blame for their massive screw-up.
James @ 20, 21: The guinea pigs died from thirst? You'd think if there was nerve gas contamination in the house somewhere,
thirst would be the last thing they'd die of.
Even the story about the animals' fate looks as if it had been cobbled together at the last minute.
If police had visited the house on March 4, immediately or almost immediately after the Skripals were found, surely they
would have found the animals in good condition? Sergei Skripal had apparently had the animals brought over from Russia at considerable
expense to himself. One assumes he must have been quite attached to them. Yet when the animals are found, they are malnourished
and starving or dead from thirst?
So what was DS Nick Bailey doing if he didn't go to the house on March 4? When was he stricken with nerve gas poisoning?
Its a common Western practice to point finger to enemies military or research facility. They win regardless of circumstances.
a) They have a specific location to point to, which "prove" they have intel.
b) If an enemy refuse access to secure facility, that means "they have something to hide."
c) If an enemy allows access and they find nothing, they simply say enemy "has hidden it somewhere else", plus they can spy on
all the other research in that facility.
US does it all the time as well, whether its Iraq, or Iran (Parchin saga is of an epic proportions), etc.
"Folks, the reason for all this anti-Putin nonsense is the one fact that the Syrian government now holds over 11 British
officers who were liaised with the terrorists in the Ghouta. They were captured 2 weeks ago by Syrian Army commandos and
are being held in separate jails around the Damascus area inside heavily guarded military bases. The Brits want them badly before
they are used to implicate England in the mess it helped to create in Syria. Damascus won't budge on this issue and, evidently,
the English are assuming Moscow is not putting pressure on Dr. Assad to release them to Old Blighty. Too bad. And they were
caught out of uniform, such that they could be executed as spies under international law. Isn't that a howler?"
I posted about this possible angle several days ago when word of captured ZioNATO operatives were more rumor-like; instead,
here Ziad makes a definite statement of fact. IMO, if the Syrians do have these spies--and I really hope they do--given the nature
of the war waged against Syria, they will not let them go for any bargain.
It seems English speakers are professional prevaricators -- I certainly had problems with truth-telling until about age 20.
Otherwise, why the myth that the young George Washington being unable to tell a lie? Yet another lie to cover for endless prevarication.
pretty sure the Russians listed the Shikhany facility for the OPCW when they did their verification and monitoring of Destruction
of Russian Chemical warfare stockpiles. Bullshit again , I'm picking, and not even very well researched
@29
Food poisoning? Would the police lie? (trick question). Mar 11, 2018 - Traces of the nerve agent used to poison former Russian
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia has been discovered at the Zizzi restaurant where they last ate, police have said.
Zizzi food poisoning complaints from Trip Advisor (undercooking):
> Zizzi - The Strand
73-75 Strand, London WC2R 0DE, England (Covent Garden)
November 12, 2016 via mobile
Regrettably our visit last night will be the last! Clearly have food poisoning this morning from undercooked chicken in the Strozzapretti
Pesto, we didn't have lunch so this can be the only place it's originated from.
Safe to say I'll be stuck in bed today!
> Zizzi Union Square, Aberdeen AB11 5RG, Scotland
Having been to Zizzis in St Andrews on numerous occasions we decided to go here before the cinema . .pizza/calzone and chicken
pasta for me...Half an hour into the film my stomach started churning and I felt nauseous. Got home and have had extreme diahorrea
and abdo pain all night. Since all I had yesterday was cereal and toast and jam I think it's safe to conclude I picked this up
at zizzis. DON'T GO....
@34 jen... it is a really poorly written script and appears to be changing quite regularly.... none of it adds up and as many
of us here have said - we are calling bullshit on most all of it.. the story on the pets is further proof that none of this story
holds up with any scrutiny..
Mirzayanov claimed that the Soviet Union developed a binary nerve agent 8-10-times more potent that the American VX. A binary
agent is a compound produced in a chemical reaction from two benign precursors right before use. Such agents offer obvious advantages:
the production is much easier with no extraordinary safety precautions required, storage is also much simplified, no need to stockpile
the actual chemical weapons agent (CWA), there is no problem with stability of the CWA, et cetera. The US spent significant resources
on the binary CWA program of its own. Interestingly, in the original publications of 1992 the agent in question was simply referred
to as binary agent. The name Novichok first surfaced in the 1994 report by Lev Feodorov about the chemical weapons in Russia.
According to Vladimir Uglev, a chemist who worked at the same institute as Mirzayanov on the new series of CWA, the official name
of the program was Foliant. Mirzayanov later confirmed that.
The believable part of the story is that the Soviet Union and later Russia would have a successful chemical weapons program
similar to that in the US. Uglev specifically stated that the Foliant program was meant as the answer to the American VX agent.
The quantities of the agents produced ranged from several milligrams to kilograms, and several hundreds compound were supposedly
synthesized – all this points to the development stage of the program. There is no indication that any of the agents were ever
weaponized, i.e. munitions for delivery of the CWA to the enemy were designed, except for the statements of Mirzayanov. However,
by his own admission, he wasn't involved in weaponization, and, thus, he is unlikely to have a firsthand know-ledge about it.
Remarkably, Uglev said that although his group developed several deadly substances, attempts to develop binary formulations failed,
and no binary agents were ever produced.
Uglev's statements regarding his work are much more specific than Mirzayanov's and, thus, more believable. Besides, Uglev,
unlike Mirzayanov, was involved in the actual development of the agents. Mirzayanov's job, as the Head of the Counterintelligence
Department, was to control the space around the institute, and he had no part in developing the technology.
The UK long ago voted in the highest chambers of power to manifest a Trexit, the exit from all forms of the truth. Every day they
prove this more and more.
@ Galvanise #28
Indeed the tail has wagged the God but first and foremost the tail has done the Devil's work. If all dogs of wars are now
unleashed following some absurd false flag as murky and grotesque as the Skippy affair...
we, as human species, are absolutely doomed to live in hell for quite sometimes.
When all it takes is a couple of goofs
strained by some remnants from Vicky's cookies virus pleagues, we are issuing a no-parole sentence on all human beings... further
to be condemned for centuries, our heads hidden in some 'Novi-fogs' of wars... or another.
Perhaps some sort of British standards of living, permanently under some kind of... 'foog'. We have recently learned from the
Pope there is no Hell to go to (cos' we already are in living hell). Then, Foggy Paradise must be empty, deprived from any kind
of wisdom.
The only thing that has been officially confirmed is that blood tests showed breakdown products of organophosphates that were
believed to come from a "Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." I still do not think they have found novichok anywhere
in the environment or have collected a sample that could be independently verified to be novichok in some foreign laboratory.
At least we have not seen any official confirmation that such a sample exists. Nor have we received information on exactly what
compound this "novichok" is claimed to be.
I suspect the traces of "novichok" found all over the place, from the Zizzi restaurant to the door handle, are just some
ordinary organophosphate pesticide.
A POSSIBLE SCENARIO
The Skripals are suffering from "paralytic shellfish poisoning" they received from saxitoxin or tetrodotoxin in the seafood
in the Risotto Pesce they ate at the Zizzi restaurant. The Skripals received traces of some organophosphate pesticide from
the flowers they left at the graves in the morning. They then left trace on the door handles of the BMW. A video show the BMW
driving away from Sergei Skripl's house at 14:55 in the afternoon. This would mean that they visited the house after leaving the
pub and entering the Zizzi restaurant, leaving further organophosphate traces on the door knob of the house.
Thanks 'B' for keeping the torch lit and shine thru the british lies .. it is so lame and amateurish and i agree for years
these propagandist been doing their job the 'easy way' and now they been exposed by the still thinking crowd in the net..
BTW anyone here know why Col Patrick Lang disable comments on SST ? is he afraid of people posting facts and truth in his site
?
Petri Krohn @ 47: I'd say your story is the most credible interpretation of all the "evidence".
This would suggest that if the breakfast cereal brought to the UK from Russia for Sergei Skripal is tested for "Novichok",
it will also test positive for traces of "Novichok". (Unless of course Lord President Vlademort rids the entire Russian Federation
of all its agricultural pests with a magnanimous wave of his hand and the utterance of a secret spell.)
The police officer DS Nick Bailey who was hospitalised may have had an allergic reaction to the pesticide or to something else
in the Skripal house.
By now, Russia should have learned that arguing with GB is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the
bird is just gonna knock all the pieces over, shit on the board, and strut around as if it won anyway.
The British denial of a visitor visa to a Skripal family relative from Russia is fueling
concern that the whole affair is far more sinister than what the British government and media
have been claiming.
Far from the Skripal father and daughter being the alleged victims of a Russian
assassination plot, it now seems increasingly apparent that they are being held against their
will by Britain's authorities. In short, hostages of the British state.
From the outset of the alleged poisoning incident in Salisbury on March 4, the official
British narrative has been pocked suspiciously with inconsistencies. The lightning-fast rush to
judgment by the British government – within days – to blame the Kremlin for "a
brazen murder attempt" was perhaps the main giveaway that the narrative was following a script
and foregone conclusion to incriminate Russia.
Last week, the saga took several significant twists raising more doubts about the official
British narrative. First, British scientists at the Porton Down warfare laboratory
admitted that they hadn't in fact confirmed the alleged nerve agent used against the
Skripals originated from Russia. That admission spectacularly exposed earlier British
government claims as false, if not barefaced lies.
Secondly, it emerged
that potentially key witness-material was destroyed by the British. Three pet animals in the
Salisbury home of Sergei Skripal were declared dead and their remains incinerated. Autopsies
could have shed light on the nature of the alleged nerve agent used against the Skripals. Why
were the animal remains incinerated? And why did the British authorities disclose the fate of
the animals only after the matter was raised by the Russian envoy to the UN Security Council on
Thursday?
Thirdly, there is the strangely callous way that the British authorities have refused a
visitor visa to a Skripal family relative from Russia who was intending to fly to England to be
with her relatives while they are reportedly recuperating from the alleged poison attack.
Russian national Victoria Skripal revealed on Friday to Russian news media that she was
refused a visa by British authorities to visit her relatives – cousin Yulia and uncle
Sergei – who are reportedly confined to a hospital in Salisbury.
The day before her visa application was rejected, Victoria had a brief
telephone conversation with Yulia. It appears that Victoria recorded the conversation and
made it available to Russian media to broadcast. The transcript shows that Yulia's words were
guarded. She was obviously not comfortable with speaking freely. Their phone call ended
abruptly. But she did manage to advise her cousin in Russia that the latter would probably not
be granted a visitor visa. Why would she say such a thing?
British media quickly tried to smear the Russian cousin, Victoria. A BBC journalist said
that the British authorities "suspected that Victoria was being used as a pawn by the Kremlin".
Russian's foreign ministry hit back at that suggestion, saying it was a despicable slur.
For her part, Victoria Skripal told Russian media that she thinks the British authorities
have "something to hide" by refusing to grant her a permit to Britain in order to visit her
cousin and uncle. Was her visa application rejected by the British authorities because she had
the "audacity" to record the phone call with her cousin and make it available to Russian
media?
Far more plausible is not that Victoria is a "Kremlin pawn" but that the British fear that
Victoria would not be a "London pawn". The worst thing for the British authorities would be for
an independent-minded Skripal relative coming to the Salisbury hospital and asking critical
questions about the nature of why her relatives are being held there.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if several other Skripal relatives in
Russia were to make similar applications for visitor visas to Britain. Surely, the British
authorities could not turn them all down?
For over a month now since the March 4 incident in Salisbury, the Russian consular
representatives in Britain have not been allowed access to the Skripal pair, allegedly being
treated in hospital.
Fair enough, Sergei Skripal is a disgraced former Russian spy who had been living in England
for nearly eight years. He was exiled there by Moscow as part of a spy-swap with Britain's
foreign intelligence MI6 whom Skripal had served as a double agent. It is believed he was given
British citizenship by the London authorities.
However, his daughter, 33-year-old Yulia, is a citizen of the Russian Federation. She was
visiting her father on holiday when the pair became ill – apparently from exposure to a
nerve agent – while sitting in a public park in Salisbury.
Yulia and the Russian authorities are therefore entitled under international law to have
consular contact. The Russian embassy in London has been repeatedly denied access by the
British authorities to one of its citizens. On the face of it, that is an outrageous breach of
international law by the British.
Significantly, Yulia did not express to her cousin during their phone conversation that she
did not want to see the Russian consular people. That phone call was obviously initiated by
Yulia. Her Russian-based cousin at one point asked her, "Is this your phone?".
How Yulia got use of the phone is a good question. Was it a hospital staff member who felt
obliged to allow her a quick call home? Evidently, the call was held in a rushed manner, and
Yulia felt constrained to talk in detail about her confinement. And why would she warn her
cousin in Russia that the latter would not be given a visa before the application result was
known?
It is speculated in British media – most probably at the behest of briefings by
shadowy state officials – that Yulia Skripal does not want to see her cousin, or the
Russian consular representatives. Even though Yulia did not express that in her phone call. If
Yulia didn't want to see her cousin, why would she bother calling her, apparently out of the
blue?
The speculation about Yulia's preferences are based on the official British premise that the
Russian state attempted to carry out an assassination with a toxic chemical on her father. It
is therefore insinuated by the official British narrative that Yulia would not want to see the
Russian authorities.
But that logic depends entirely on the plausibility of the British version of events. That
is, that a Russian state operation used a Russian nerve agent to try to kill Sergei Skripal,
and his daughter as collateral damage.
That British version has relied totally on assertion, innuendo and unverified claims made by
politicians briefed by secret services. Claims which we are now seeing to be unfounded, as the
Porton Down scientists disclosed last week.
At no point have the British produced any evidence to substantiate their high-flown
allegations against Russia. Indeed, Britain refuses to give Russia access to alleged samples in
order to carry out an independent chemical analysis.
The entire British case relies on a presumption of guilt and a despicable prejudice towards
Russia as a malicious actor. That's it entirely. British prejudice and contempt for due
process.
However, what if the Russian government were correct? What if the British state carried out
a macabre false flag operation by stealthily injuring the Skripals with some kind of chemical
in order to blame it on Russia? For the plausible purpose of adding one more smear campaign in
order to demonize and delegitimize Russia as an international power.
No doubt, the situation is disturbing and disorientating especially for Yulia Skripal who
apparently was simply visiting her father in England for a happy family reunion.
More sinister, however, is the apparent lack of free will being afforded to Yulia Skripal.
The British official position simply conflates their innuendo of a Russian plot, an innuendo
which is increasingly untenable.
The denial of a visitor visa to Yulia's family relatives from Russia points to the sinister
conclusion that the British authorities are engaging in a macabre propaganda stunt. Moreover, a
propaganda stunt involving the criminal assault on a Russian citizen and the ongoing illegal
detention of that citizen.
By the way, the Vice President of the Association of veterans of special services Berkut
Valery Malevanny spoke about the same, about the Ukrainian trace in an interview with "SP".
According to him, Skripal once worked for the Ukrainian mafia. Namely: on the oligarch
Alexander Perepelichny who was killed in 2012 in London under unclear circumstances.
Was published reports on the financial status Skripal. It turns out that he has a house in
Britain for 270 thousand pounds, a house in Spain for 210 thousand pounds, and a Bank account
is 450 thousand pounds. Where does a simple British intelligence officer get that kind of
money?
In addition, according to MI-5, Skripal regularly flew to Kiev and Odessa. Most likely, it
was about establishing smuggling channels.
So, the Finns have every reason to question the British version of the poisoning of an
ex-GRU officer.
"... Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel? ..."
"... Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence (and a University position) in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia. There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016): ..."
"... "In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published." ..."
"... "There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason." ..."
Remember, the evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damning
Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin
(and yet the Skripals are still alive!?).
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to
create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained that "the chemical components or precursors" of
Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies
that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve
agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then
spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of
information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him
residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence (and a University position) in the United States
after he was kicked out of Russia. There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero
solid evidence for the existence of the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in
Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the
West, some countries carried out such research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some
reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
@ 17 -- There seem to be lots of weasely things being said about the fate of the Skripal
pets. The big, fluffy black cat with amber eyes should in no way whatsoever have suffered such
depletion of calories that he had to be put down. I fear he was sent to Porton Down to be
"studied," and then "put down."
If there was a water source --dripping faucet, water closet,
most houses have some place a pet can drink from other that his water bowl-- a cat can survive
weeks. My Maine Coon disappeared, but showed up about 3-4 weeks later, ragged coat, unkempt,
very thin, but, when given saline solution by the vet, immediately began to act more normal.
Took a while to get her muscle mass rebuilt, but she survived.
An article from The Sun, dated April 5th, has a photo of Nash Van Drake (what a pretty cat),
and states the specialist chemical weapons investigators did not gain access to the Skripal
residence UNTIL APRIL 4TH!!! We know from photographs that lots of folks wearing moons suits
were around for weeks -- why was nothing done to care for the pets?
I can't find it now through google, but I read a comment or tweet from a vet who had made
repeated offers to care for the pets. These pets should never have suffered to the extent they
did.
Someone in power did not want anyone outside those with enforced silence agreements to see
those pets.
The sickly mog was transported to the Ministry of Defence research laboratory at Porton
Down to be tested, where he was found to be severely malnourished.
The lab's top veterinary officer ruled the pet was in so much pain he should be put
down.
His body was then immediately incinerated to avoid contamination from the deadly nerve
agent Novichok.
Sergei's guinea pigs were also destroyed at the top secret military research facility.
(If there is a hell, may these animal abusers end up there with long and miserable
afterlives.)
"Comrade Putin, we have successfully stockpiled novichoks in secret for ten years, and kept
them hidden from the OPCW inspectors. We have also trained our agents in secret novichok
assassination techniques. The programme has cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but now we
are ready. Naturally, the first time we use it we will expose our secret and suffer massive
international blowback. So who should be our first target? The head of a foreign intelligence
agency? A leading jihadist rebel in Syria? A key nuclear scientist? Even a Head of State?"
"No, Tovarich. There is this old retired guy I know living in Salisbury. We released him
from jail years ago "
"With respect Comrade Putin, are you sure he is the most important target to reveal a
programme we have put so much resource into for ten years?"
"Yes. I sit here every day and I cannot concentrate on the affairs of Russia or the World as
all the time am thinking of Sergei Skripal. I should never have let him out of jail to spend
his life buying lottery tickets and eating in Zizzis. But you must make absolutely certain to
kill him."
"Don't worry Comrade Putin, we have been training in secret novichok assassination
techniques for ten years. We even have an detailed manual explaining our methods. We will
spread the novichok on his outside door handle (fiendish laugh)."
"Are you sure comrade? Is there not a danger it will wash off or get diluted?"
"No Comrade Putin, it never rains in England."
That is, genuinely, in every detail the official British government version of what happened
in Salisbury, including the ten year programme and the secret assassination manual.
Despite this story being one of the most improbably wild conspiracy theories in human
history, it is those who express any doubt at all as to its veracity who are smeared as
"conspiracy theorists" or even "traitors".
All copyright on this article is waived. Feel free to use, translate and republish as you
wish.
From comments: "I was quite surprised the rebels actually went ahead with the so-called gas attack. They didn't, US-France-UK-(Turkey)
did. The rebels are the ones with guns and ammo, the alliance are the ones with actors and cameras. "
Notable quotes:
"... If Trump possesses one talent it must surely be the ability to spot a Con Artist pulling a fast one. If he can't connect the same dots that b has just done then Trump has to be an idiot, and I don't for a second believe that he is an idiot. ..."
"... Just one thing that I should point out: the Syrian Observatory is NOT claiming that there has been a chemical weapons attack on Douma. ..."
"... But the claim that those suffocations were the result of chlorine attack is being made by the white helmets, not (at least so far) by the SOHR. ..."
"... The best time for Putin to respond to a Western provocation isn't now, it's when he effectively has hundreds of thousands of Western hostages in his country - June/July. ..."
"... For White Helmets read Britain. They are British created, funded and operated. May's Government has to be deep in this as well. ..."
"... Never forget that May, Cameron and other conservative MPs crossed the floor of parliament and voted for Blair and the illegal attack on Iraq when Labour MPs refused to support him. ..."
"... I hope that this "news" will just fade away. Sad fact is that whatever Russians say or do it doesn't really matter anymore. A narrative and a rhetoric coming from the US is now at the so low level that any diplomatic language or a talk is rendered obsolete. ..."
"... I also think that is is not up to Trump, but more off to a military and the dark powers around Trump, that he doesn't really understand, to decide what is happing next. If anything. ..."
"... The hostage here is the world cup itself, just as the 2014 Olympics were. And in retrospect it was probably a mistake for Russia to host them, but then who could have predicted all this back in 2007 or 8? ..."
"... At any rate, Russia should resist provocations games or not. Retaliation, if any, should be covert and deniable. Unless the west is dumb enough to openly attack Russian forces. Then a hammer blow to the face is appropriate. ..."
"... If there was such a FF 'gas attack' as we have just seen in Syria while the World Cup was on and the US/UK response (as we've heard previously from Russian/Syrian sources) was to initiate strikes against Syrian Government installations, and then Russia has promised to respond if any of their personnel were killed in these strikes the Russians reserve the right (as they have repeatedly started) to strike back against any US/UK targets responsible for the strikes - ie - shooting US/UK planes out of the sky or sinking US/UK warships, destroyers or carriers in the Eastern Mediterranean. ..."
"... If that level of escalation were to occur (and take note I'm not saying it will because I don't believe Putin will take this bait), but if it were, where could the escalation lead on the part of the US/UK?? ..."
"... These areas are intensely scrutinized by the Russians and the SAA, drones, satellite. It would be good to get some footage of the White Helmets staging this, but of course they are embedded with all the rest of the fighting men elsewhere and are never anywhere near where all the children tend to be targeted. ..."
"... I am confident that JAYSH was not going to negotiate, until after they had finished the "job" for their paymasters...once that was completed, they are ready to negotiate again... ..."
"... But The Donald is saying that there are women and children amongst those affected by the supposed attack, but other sites are reporting on the astonishing fact that there are only children in the broadcast footage.. what amount to a staged play like that of Goutha years ago... ..."
"... July 16, 2017. Newswire. CIA Director Admits Fooling Trump Over Syrian Chemical Weapons Story ( ) The false flag attack, which actually originated from CIA rebel groups in the region, resulted in Trump launching Tomahawk missiles into Syria, killing 15 civilians. Posted because of some interest despite misleading title and dubious source. http://yournewswire.com/cia-trump-syria-chemical-weapons/ ..."
"... I am afraid. Have not been this afraid since election night when Hillary was almost elected. The world lucked out and survived to live another day. Has our luck run out? ..."
"... Sigh, here we go again, just like Skripal case, west acts with propaganda and psyops without any evidence. The stupid TRUMP will of course bomb Syria again along with the disgusting Macron cheered by EU and western media. ..."
"... In the US when a murder occurs and a suspect apprehended there is a trial that can take weeks or months, and the prosecution and the defense present their expert Witnesses. Then at the end of all that a jury usually decides where the person is guilty or not. On the other hand, when a crime is alleged in another country far far away from the US, such as an alleged gas attack in Syria, within days we know exactly who is responsible and on that basis are willing to commit arms, troops and spend billions of dollars to kill people in large quantities and destroy a country. One would think that given the stakes involved a little bit more care might be taken. ..."
"... "Gas" scares the bejesus out of rubes. Makes Great Drama. Triggers, then reinforces historical themes. "The fiend! He gassed his own people!" "Gas Chambers" (Cant' go there!). If there's gas, well, by golly there's got to be a ham-handed, asymmetrical "response" (motherfocker of all bombs!) from the "International Community". ..."
"... BTW, kudos to those who pegged the Skripal incident as prelude to some sort of chemical incident in Syria. It couldn't have been scripted better for a TV program. Oh, wait... ..."
"... The point is that the Russians have been preparing for just such an event for months. Was it not two months ago that the Russians put troops into Damascus to prevent a decapitating strike? A US strike would be a sort of Kursk Offensive, attacking into a well-prepared defence. ..."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States' diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country's
president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama
administration's initial and public stance on Assad's fate.
World leaders expressed shock and outrage Tuesday at reports of a suspected chemical attack in northwestern Syria that killed
scores of civilians, with one UK official suggesting the incident amounted to a war crime.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has told CNN that removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power is
a priority, cementing an extraordinary U-turn in the Trump administration's stance on the embattled leader.
The Khan Sheikhun incident had been faked. An international investigation
found that half of the alleged casualties arrived in hospitals before the incident was said to have happened. Nothing followed
after Haley's last announcement. The administration was apparently not willing to go beyond the one-off strike. The flip-flop was
attributed to confusion or infighting
within the Trump administration.
I have the feeling that Russia is loosing patience, and if the US try something it will be big trouble. The speed with which Ghouta
was taken caused problems for the West. I hope Russia will clean up Syria quickly; I think we are approaching a decisive moment.
All of these world leaders walk in lockstep together following the script handed to them. I would leave Damascus in a hurry if
I was living there. The Zionists want to fulfil Isaiah 17.
now we know why the skripals happened. the west is now, today, intent on russia's destruction. putin 'dies' or the west dies.
not since the 1950's era of hiding under desks in elementary school have i felt as though i am living in the 'end times.'
If Trump possesses one talent it must surely be the ability to spot a Con Artist pulling a fast one. If he can't connect the
same dots that b has just done then Trump has to be an idiot, and I don't for a second believe that he is an idiot.
Surely
this is a golden opportunity for Trump to go off-script and shaft those who are trying to con him.
All it would take is one twitter post from him stating that only an dimwit would fall for such an obvious trap, and he will
turn the tables on anyone who shouts that The USA Must Do Something About This!!!!!
Trump's retort would be devastating: there ya' go, Dimwit Number One.
World Cup starts on June 14. Do you really think Putin/Russia will do anything to jeopardize the hosting of that event this close
to the finish line?
I really doubt it.
Who in Russia would be held responsible if a conflict started and the World Cup in Russia was cancelled??
Which Russian politician would be blamed by the people???
Putin will do nothing and will not be provoked. Do you know the best time to respond? It is actually during the World Cup when
hundreds of thousands of EU and foreign nationals will be in Russia - effectively hostages that prevent the West taking over action
against Russia - yep, it's that simple.
The best time for Putin to respond to a Western provocation isn't now, it's when he effectively has hundreds of thousands
of Western hostages in his country - June/July.
Yeah/7: For White Helmets read Britain. They are British created, funded and operated. May's Government has to be deep in
this as well.
Never forget that May, Cameron and other conservative MPs crossed the floor of parliament and voted for
Blair and the illegal attack on Iraq when Labour MPs refused to support him.
Without Theresa May and David Cameron, Blair wouldn't have had the authority to attack.
The Iraqi blood is on her hands.
And Libyan blood.
And Syrian blood.
And now Salisbury and this.
I hope that this "news" will just fade away. Sad fact is that whatever Russians say or do it doesn't really matter anymore.
A narrative and a rhetoric coming from the US is now at the so low level that any diplomatic language or a talk is rendered obsolete.
UK will trumpet this as there is no tomorrow while Skripal case is, in their eyes, hopefully blurring away. Or so they might
think.
I also think that is is not up to Trump, but more off to a military and the dark powers around Trump, that he doesn't really
understand, to decide what is happing next. If anything.
@8, that is impossible. There is no way Russia will harm any of the soccer fans or stop them from leaving if they choose to leave.
The hostage here is the world cup itself, just as the 2014 Olympics were. And in retrospect it was probably a mistake for
Russia to host them, but then who could have predicted all this back in 2007 or 8?
At any rate, Russia should resist provocations games or not. Retaliation, if any, should be covert and deniable. Unless
the west is dumb enough to openly attack Russian forces. Then a hammer blow to the face is appropriate.
With due respect I think you misunderstand what I'm saying about 'hostages'.
If there was such a FF 'gas attack' as we have just seen in Syria while the World Cup was on and the US/UK response (as
we've heard previously from Russian/Syrian sources) was to initiate strikes against Syrian Government installations, and then
Russia has promised to respond if any of their personnel were killed in these strikes the Russians reserve the right (as they
have repeatedly started) to strike back against any US/UK targets responsible for the strikes - ie - shooting US/UK planes out
of the sky or sinking US/UK warships, destroyers or carriers in the Eastern Mediterranean.
If that level of escalation were to occur (and take note I'm not saying it will because I don't believe Putin will take
this bait), but if it were, where could the escalation lead on the part of the US/UK??
Could it lead to Western military strikes of some sort or another?
Could it do that next week? Maybe.
Could it do that while Russia is hosting the World Cup worth hundreds of thousands of Western nationals in Russia? Of course
not. The Western route of escalation is therefore blunted while the World Cup is being hosted while there is no such barrier on
Russian response to Western provocation while the World Cup is being hosted.
Ie - if Russia did respond to US/UK strikes against Syria whilst the World Cup was being hosted by sinking a couple of US destroyers,
what would happen then?
Given the level of Western insanity and the frequency of the outrages being perpetrated, I don't think we will have to wait several
months to see all hell break loose.
WaPo and NYT led the way on this story at news.google. WaPo said that Washington based non-profit Syrian-American Medical Society
(SAMS) issued a joint statement with "opposition-linked Civil Defense" (the usual suspects - The White Helmets). There are lots
of details on the attacks and damage at Douma but only a tiny mention that Jaish al-Islam launched rockets into densely populated
Damascus. Why are there no reports of death and damage in those areas? And where did SAMS come from?
Worth to check out - East Ghouta, Syria. Report of Chinese analysts examined by Russian leading Middle East expert (UK/US military
advisers in Syria, "Skripal case" hysteria etc.)
This is Trump's big chance to redeem himself with the U.S. military ( after "mindlessly" declaring his wish to leave Syria and
the entire area ) and get down on his knees and suck Pentagon cock. He will obligingly do this ( as his girlfriends and wife do
for him ) and "allow " ( as if he has a choice ) the U.S. war machine, to which he has conceded all civilian control, to respond
to the obviously faked and staged false flag chemical attack, in any way they see fit. Russia has already announced that if their
troops in Syria are attacked they will respond by Removing the source of that attack, i.e., sinking the ship that launched the
missiles. So the U.S. military has lit the fuse and as has worried all of us for a very long time : God only knows where this
is headed.
These areas are intensely scrutinized by the Russians and the SAA, drones, satellite. It would be good to get some footage
of the White Helmets staging this, but of course they are embedded with all the rest of the fighting men elsewhere and are never
anywhere near where all the children tend to be targeted.
It's anybody's guess with Trump, remember he said he liked the element of surprise, well, it's hard to spring a surprise when
the MSM, in Europe particularly, is literally screaming for a military response with top page headlines.
It was interesting last night watching various outlets over there and how from a seedling article, a little sidebar headline
no pics, then came a weed of propaganda, they began every 3-4 hours nudging it to the top and the accusations got wilder and and
wilder, ie calling it a 'nerve agent'...
Commenting is now turned back on at SST, look forward to b and others commenting there again. I think the whole idea there
was to be like the Louis Rukeyser show in the old days, genteel host and guests, just an opinion, didn't work out.
I am confident that JAYSH was not going to negotiate, until after they had finished the "job" for their paymasters...once
that was completed, they are ready to negotiate again...
I would recommend not negotiating with Jaysh until the hostages
have been released...I think their attitude will change quickly now that they are surrounded and no escape/rescue is possible...i
wonder how many state agents are stuck inside douma? going to be very embarassing...and it sounds like SAA has a few in custody
already...
"I think the fog is clearing on Trump's thoughts on the matter with his fierce tweet storm mentioning "Animal Assad.""
But The Donald is saying that there are women and children amongst those affected by the supposed attack, but other sites
are reporting on the astonishing fact that there are only children in the broadcast footage.. what amount to a staged play like
that of Goutha years ago...
I think I understand your post better now, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure that it makes a difference where the
tourists are if I understand your 2nd comment correctly. If envision an escalation to full on war, then it really doesn't matter
if the soccer fans are at home getting disintegrated by Russian nukes or in Russia getting disintegrated by American nukes.
July 16, 2017. Newswire. CIA Director Admits Fooling Trump Over Syrian Chemical Weapons Story ( ) The false flag attack, which
actually originated from CIA rebel groups in the region, resulted in Trump launching Tomahawk missiles into Syria, killing 15
civilians. Posted because of some interest despite misleading title and dubious source.
http://yournewswire.com/cia-trump-syria-chemical-weapons/
SecDef Mattis is a key player in this drama. Mattis didn't buy the fake attack a year ago which no doubt contributed to the
flashy but ineffective US response. Putting the blame for this latest fake attack on Russia and Iran (a difference this time)
suggests an asymmetric non-military response, one designed to grab headlines and then be forgotten. Trump has sanctioned Russia
three times in the past month and bragged about it, so Putin is now his go-to enemy when fake news arises. That Trump strategy
(or lack of it) strengthens Russia domestically and internationally, especially with China, so it works for Putin.
Perhaps the British false flag poisoning may have a dampening effect on world reaction to this false flag. There are many governments
with egg on their face after rushing to throw out the russ diplomats.
Affluent Anglo Soccer guests in Russia would be need be detained for their own safety - a kind of twist on R2P. Very embarrassing
for elite US, UK, EU jet-setting soccer fans to be detained for an indeterminate period. But for their own safety! Here, enjoy
your borscht and caviar.
re: SST
"17 million page views for SST and gone -- I am leaving you. Guest authors, commenters and the various troll nations may continue
if you wish. I may start another blog under "Pat Lang's Blog" but there will not be comments. pl" -- Jun 8, 2017
The SAA launching a chemical attack on Douma makes no sense. The intention with chemical weapons was to deny areas of land to
opposing forces. Now that most modern armies are supplied with effective protection against chemical weapons for individuals and
vehicles, area denial no longer works except to the extent that wearing chemical protection suits hinders movement but this applies
to both sides so nobody benefits and nobody loses.
I am afraid. Have not been this afraid since election night when Hillary was almost elected. The world lucked out and survived
to live another day. Has our luck run out?
Sigh, here we go again, just like Skripal case, west acts with propaganda and psyops without any evidence. The stupid TRUMP
will of course bomb Syria again along with the disgusting Macron cheered by EU and western media.
That is the most plausible scenario. The "intensity" of the US "response" to the False Flag gas (always gas!) attack. remains
to be seen. Pummeling airstrips are generally good stagecraft/showmanship and little else. Airstrips are quickly repaired and
back up to speed in short order.
Beirut (AP) -- An alleged gas attack killed at least 40 people in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, as Syrian rebels agreed
to give up their last foothold in the area, medics and state media reported on Sunday.
...
Meanwhile, state news agency SANA said the Army of Islam group agreed to leave Douma on Sunday, after three days of intensive
government shelling and bombardment.
... The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 80 people were killed in Douma on Saturday, including around 40 who
died from suffocation. But it said the suffocations were the result of shelters collapsing on people inside them.
"Until this minute, no one has been able to find out the kind of agent that was used," said Mahmoud, the White Helmets'
spokesman, in a video statement from Syria.
"The 2017 Shayrat missile strike took place on the morning of 7 April 2017,[1][4] ..the strike was executed under responsibility
of U.S. President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack that occurred on 4 Apri"
miss match in timings damn it. The syria event production should have happened same day as bell pottinger salsbury thus creating
another libya quick all in nato depleted uranium party. with movie play and tv show timing and script and emotion are critical
for engagement.
emotion is the gelling agent for consent that is why so many tv and radio news pundit are actor not journalist
In the US when a murder occurs and a suspect apprehended there is a trial that can take weeks or months, and the prosecution
and the defense present their expert Witnesses. Then at the end of all that a jury usually decides where the person is guilty
or not. On the other hand, when a crime is alleged in another country far far away from the US, such as an alleged gas attack
in Syria, within days we know exactly who is responsible and on that basis are willing to commit arms, troops and spend billions
of dollars to kill people in large quantities and destroy a country. One would think that given the stakes involved a little bit
more care might be taken.
"Gas" scares the bejesus out of rubes. Makes Great Drama. Triggers, then reinforces historical themes. "The fiend! He gassed
his own people!" "Gas Chambers" (Cant' go there!). If there's gas, well, by golly there's got to be a ham-handed, asymmetrical
"response" (motherfocker of all bombs!) from the "International Community".
Happy Easter to all our Orthodox Christian friends around the globe. The message is 'never lose hope or live in fear'. Christ
leads in this eternal battle against evil and Satan's minions. This war has brought all civilizations of the land together. The
dying civilization of the ocean will wreck havoc until it expires. There are many paths to that ruin.
Confronting the Son of
God is assuredly one of them. Naturally, the devils have chosen Orthodox Easter to launch this latest perfidy against Russia.
@morongobill #19. There is often a stark difference between what Trump says or tweets and what he actually does. Often he is speaking
and acting for the benefit of various target audiences, sometimes on opposite sides, simultaneously. However, his bellicose response
to the alleged chemical attacks in Syria is cause for worry. Trump is a bully, and he would not wish to appear weak by backing
down from explicitly threatening rhetoric. Besides, he doesn't give a damn about killing Syrians or anyone else.
BTW, kudos to those who pegged the Skripal incident as prelude to some sort of chemical incident in Syria. It couldn't
have been scripted better for a TV program. Oh, wait...
And
2 days ago bbc arabic was running a headline all day about Russian mercenaries flow to Syria on regular commercial flights. There
s a whole world out there in the propaganda addressed to Arab viewers. No time to check if alarabiyya and Aljazeera are now broadcasting
the vids from duma 24/7 as they used to do
Trump is a like a wind-up doll in that he can be easily led astray due to his complete lack of knowledge of foreign and military
affairs. Just tell him children have been "gassed" and he gets angry and wants to strike back. The super hawks can thus wind up
him whenever they really need to him to do something stupid. (I mean, other than the normal stupid things he does all the time
on his own.)
I don't see it as an Israel issue but a "who controls the tools of human exchange" issue that may be about to evolve.....or
not
Certainly the entitlement of some folks will be affected by making finance a global public utility but I think that is a good
thing....
Think of the potential of our species if we can evolve beyond the "social contract" we operate under currently....I am excited
about the potential and measured about the chances of it all happening.
we need to come together as a world community forget about yesterdays semite children of palastine slaughter and deal with animal
assad and the more important children of ghouta
Israeli officials: U.S. must strike in Syria
"Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him."
The United States must attack the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria in response to the regime chemical gas strike on the Syrian
town Douma that killed more than 70 people, Strategic Affairs and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said Sunday.
Speaking on Army Radio, Erdan, who is Netanyahu's number two in Likud, said he hoped US military action against the Assad regime
would be taken again, as it was when the regime used chemical weapons against its people in the past.
@24 Noirette - thanks for that link to the story of how Pompeo gamed Trump into the missile launch (not to call it a "strike")
against Syria last year. I must keep that one for reference.
Good that Trump got those tweets off his chest. We can rest easier now. I wonder if he ever will understand how he's being
played by the people around him? His sentimentality seems to be a weakness they can easily leverage.
Nothing will happen, of course. As lysander suggests, Russia probably will inflict some covert pain on US interests, while
as b reports the FM has already warned of consequences if the US should be stupid enough to do something overt. I really like
lysander's image of the hammer blow to the face as Russian retaliation.
Friends, we are seeing the last days of false flags and the last days of the world caring about western propaganda. How many
Russian diplomats are left for vassal nations to expel? How many times can the UK government disgrace itself, or Trump have a
meltdown on Twitter - and nothing serious ever happens? How many times do we need to see a fleet turn back from Korea - even assuming
it could find its way there in the first place - or US missiles fail to strike their targets, whether in Syria or Yemen?
The greater the bluster, the more crystalline the result of no-result appears to the cooler heads of the world. Which shows
that even when the dog doesn't bark in the night, still the caravan moves on.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) tore into President Trump after he put blame on former President Obama following reports of a chemical
attack in Syria.
"Dear @realDonaldTrump: Remember when you launched cruise missiles at a largely empty field in Syria? That unconstitutional
act didn't do very much," Lieu tweeted.
"Remember when you said last week that US is leaving Syria in six months? So what
is your plan? You're the President now. Remember?"
Trump took to Twitter Sunday to condemn the attacks and rail against Obama. "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red
Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!" Trump tweeted, referring
to Syrian President Bashar Assad. . .
here
@49 "Just tell him children have been "gassed" and he gets angry and wants to strike back."
He does have a couple of options...neither very appealing. He can ignore the 'gas attack' and be called callous and uncaring.
He can hold off and ask for more evidence and get told he's soft on Putin/Assad.
Imho i find the us statement pretty "soft". "verification" is better than "russia/assad did it". i don't think the us is going
to "strike". the military paradigm has changed. they know, we hope.
Convenient timing to take the focus away for the IDF shooting Palestinian kids and journalist or the botched Skripal show. The
new memo is Assad, gas, Iran, Russia, Putin - repeat.
Look everybody, over there!!!
You gotta hand it to these guys. They've perfected the art of fooling the masses very well.
"Is Trump really willing to escalate towards that?"
More than likely willing and able to take it right up to the wire in the lead up to (and during)
the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia between 14 June to 15 July 2018.
Putin will be at his weakest. UK farce was just an appetizer.
State : "We continue to closely follow disturbing reports on April 7 " . . .which we write, and we decided this time to
pile on Russia. . ."Russia has breached its commitments to the United Nations as a framework guarantor. It has betrayed the Chemical
Weapons Convention . . . yadda yadda". . . here
Don Bacon, 55, Idk. link I posted seemed interesting enough.
There is no straight admission of course (re. > Pompeo fooling Trump) and the whole story may be made up,
but it has the the ring of truth in the sense that it fits with the US top echeleons are mired in dire,
multiple, crossed, struggles. The various factions of the US PTB are not unified, and fighting secretly under the radar,
there is no unified position from the US, so not from the UK either.
@psychohistorian (67) Thanks very much for that posting of actual events on the ground in Douma. They are further reason to believe
that the alleged chemical gas attack was not the work of the Syrian army. Clearly, the rebels were on the ropes and ready for
a knockout blow. We must ask: What might the Syrian government have gained by poisoning civilians and incurring the wrath and
condemnation of the "civilized" world? Absolutely nothing! From a military standpoint, it was completely unnecessary, and from
a public relations standpoint, a predictable disaster. Hence, being rational actors, they would never have chosen to use chemical
weapons under the circumstances. Why is this so hard for Western nations and their media to understand? The only reason that I
can give is that it is in their interest not to understand. It does not comport with their agenda, which is to topple Assad and
weaken Russia.
thanks b and thanks for the many insightful comments...
of course isis is being coddled by the west as a tool for the same agenda that has never been dropped... same deal the freaks
in douma that are unwilling to negotiate... ditto oldenyoungs comments @22... don't worry oy - russia can see thru that..
@27 dh - yes.. we will see how long that lasts.. i made a comment, but it didn't show yet.. the guy is a crank at this point..
@30 Breadonwaters.. good point, but i wouldn't count on it.. the endless propaganda and false flags are relentless and i see
no sign of it stopping.. maybe if the white helmets funding dried up, but that is highly unlikely as well..
@33 don bacon.. sst - 'as the stomach turns' a soap opera that periodically does or doesn't run..
@62 zico... i always ask the question 'what would israel want here?'...
Is Trump about to have an interview with Mueller soon? Is he also trying to set up the US military to get a bloody nose in Syria?
.. so that he can fire a few generals and to try and get back on his campaign promises about pulling back foreign wars?
@Noirette 68 Ok?
Weeelll, okay. . . I will continue to value your comments.
Probably the main point here is that the CIA can't be trusted, which in its history has resulted in several comeuppances, and
should again.
Pat Lang: "Animal" Assad? Our beloved president has once again been watching a bit too much TV news. Does it ever occur to him
to pick up the secure phone and call the watch officer at CIA, NSA or wherever and ask if they think the news reports are correct?
Sure, Pat. If we can't trust the Intelligence Community, then whom can we trust? Our own lyin' eyes?
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. There is a chance Assad did this -- but here's also a chance he would walk in front of a moving train,
or jump out of an airplane. The question is, why? There's no military advantage to this. None. On the other hand, there is stupendous
value to terrorists to conduct a false flag attack.
Americans. Being played by a fiddle, like complete idiots, for... ever.
As I recall, just a few weeks ago, the US was hitting the "Attack No.Ko." circuit hard. Not much came of it, as usual, and to
what end DJT thinks these venting moments will lead, I don't have a clue. But it does follow that not much will come of this other
than us plebs wondering why we have to live under this looming threat of annihilation. At the very least, maybe a few tomahawks
will be unleashed on a few targetted shit-shacks which are being used by sheep herders. Wrong time to take a crap! The MSM needs
a rating boost and exploding outhouses with a million-dollar tomahawk might be able to beat "American Idol" tonight. I'd tune
in.
Duh, here we go again. Syria with help of Russian aerospace forces are winning the war. Why use WMD that would invite US retaliation??????The
discredited NeoCons are not happy with the state of Syria instigated war.Again regime is winning.... And lo and behold Trumpster
called for withdrawal of US forces that are illegally occupying a sovereign country. What are the NeoCon /Likudniks e to do???.Well.....
stage a false flag opps of course. Syria was always the low hanging fruit on way to war with Iran folks.........
Indeed, something Ive also thought about, I would never put my foot in the US if I were the leader of Russia.
I dont see them meeting now when Trump blow it over and over, Trump never seems to learn or he doesnt care, maybe the generals,
and state dep. is in charge of the foreign policy. Hes just a puppet?
Regardless of who makes the decisions in the US, I seriously doubt that the Russians will back down from their thrice stated threat
of direct retaliation against US forces, should the US hit Russian military personnel. The Russian red line has clearly been drawn
and if the US crazies choose to cross it, look out.
I watched the Security Counsel meeting the other day and I thought Russia really blew it. The Russian ambassador was sputtering
and stammering and all over the map and did not provide or mention the ample evidence of the widespread ability to make these
chemicals or any other evidence. While the British simply had to stay on script. Russia looked bad in my view.
Now, with the new "chemical attack" in recent hours BoJo is already calling for a prompt investigation and warns - Russia should
not be allowed to stall it. Why was not Russia out first calling for an independent investigation and demanding proper procedures
and observers?
Russia can't continue to just stand there and get punched.
A question I've been mulling over for sometime that may appear unrelated to this thread but does have a general bearing.
In the lead up and during WW2, when did the German population begin to realize they were the bad guys?
I was quite surprised the rebels actually went ahead with the so-called gas attack. I suppose some sort of combination between
a hard-line faction in Douma, desperate about being about to lose their last foothold, and nutters in the US, like Bolton. Far
too late.
The point is that the Russians have been preparing for just such an event for months. Was it not two months ago that the
Russians put troops into Damascus to prevent a decapitating strike? A US strike would be a sort of Kursk Offensive, attacking
into a well-prepared defence.
I remain convinced that Trump is psychologically unwilling to go ahead with a major war, whatever the people around him.
Trump have recently added Bolton, Pompeo, I mean come on, its obvious that Trump have no "psychologically unwilling" traits
about bombing another nation. He have done it before and will do it again, but beside its not only about Trump but also the ugly
little guy in France, Macron that are as warmongering on Syria.
This gas attack is also, from the US point of view, a sort of "surge". An unwillingness on the part of the US to admit defeat.
Something has to be done to put the US, currently losing, back into the game. Just that facing up to Russia is a bit more complicated
than beating up poorly armed Arab tribes.
@ Laguerre 94 I was quite surprised the rebels actually went ahead with the so-called gas attack. They didn't, US-France-UK-(Turkey)
did. The rebels are the ones with guns and ammo, the alliance are the ones with actors and cameras.
I am a bit confused, did the rebels agree to return to the agreement they defaulted on before or after the supposed "gas" attack?
If before, it was a ruse (or the west set the up), if after, they may have been told by Russia to return to the agreement or be
slaughtered. We live in interesting times and I am most unhappy about it.
"... For White Helmets read Britain. They are British created, funded and operated. May's Government has to be deep in this as well. ..."
"... Never forget that May, Cameron and other conservative MPs crossed the floor of parliament and voted for Blair and the illegal attack on Iraq when Labour MPs refused to support him. ..."
Yeah/7: For White Helmets read Britain. They are British created, funded and operated.
May's Government has to be deep in this as well.
Never forget that May, Cameron and other conservative MPs crossed the floor of
parliament and voted for Blair and the illegal attack on Iraq when Labour MPs refused to
support him.
Without Theresa May and David Cameron, Blair wouldn't have had the authority to
attack.
So nice of him to toss off t hreats on Orthodox Easter Sunday. What a guy.
Who's influencing him? Bolton? FOX? Pompeo? Where does Mattis stand?
Wonder who is actually influencing him.
**** Interesting article at RT about Jaysh al-Islam coming to an agreement with the Syrian
government to leave Duma/Douma and go to Jarablus. Published time: 8 Apr, 2018 13:56 Edited time: 8 Apr, 2018 15:05
The Islamist group is to leave Douma for the city of Jarablus within 48 hours, SANA reported,
citing an official source. It said a deal to release all the prisoners has been reached.
Damascus agreed to negotiate with one of the last major militant groups holding out in Douma
in a bid to protect civilians and liberate abductees
The radical Islamist group, which has been accused of using civilians as human shields,
earlier agreed to leave the enclave of Eastern Ghouta near the Syrian capital. Jaysh al-Islam
will have to clear barricades and provide maps of minefields that they have laid in the area.
The militants were set to begin withdrawing from the city of Douma on Sunday, the head of the
Russian Defense Ministry's Syrian Reconciliation Center, Major General Yury Yevtushenko has
said.
So...were the negotiations going on while supposedly Syrian was attacking with some sort of
chem bombs?? Weird.
Also, the number of injured and dead has escalated very unbelievably. From about 15 to
thoursands!!
Yes, there is a "strategy" to pretend Russia is a criminal worse than other countries.
They even mentioned the word "weapons of mass destruction" again. It is a very real campaign
in a run up to war.
"It is regrettable to say that our Western partners had tried to disrupt today's session.
In the beginning they offered to observe a minute of silence in memory of people killed in
Khan Sheyhun, Idlib province, Syria. We proposed them to hold a moment of silence to
remember all victims of chemical weapons, primarily in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, and
our partners somehow felt uncomfortable. [They] don't want to remember all victims of
chemical weapons," said Shulgin."
There have been some pretty radical reports at VeteransToday. is there anyone that can verify
these claims? or even a good German speaker that can read the labels on chemical munitions
seized by the SAA...or any other supporting reports of captured US UK ISRAELI chemical
experts in East Ghoutta?
So nice of him to toss off t hreats on Orthodox Easter Sunday. What a guy. Who's influencing him? Bolton? FOX? Pompeo? Where does Mattis stand? Wonder who is actually influencing him.
****
Interesting article at RT about Jaysh al-Islam coming to an agreement with the Syrian
government to leave Duma/Douma and go to Jarablus.
Published time: 8 Apr, 2018 13:56
Edited time: 8 Apr, 2018 15:05
The Islamist group is to leave Douma for the city of Jarablus within 48 hours, SANA reported,
citing an official source. It said a deal to release all the prisoners has been reached.
Damascus agreed to negotiate with one of the last major militant groups holding out in Douma
in a bid to protect civilians and liberate abductees
The radical Islamist group, which has been accused of using civilians as human shields,
earlier agreed to leave the enclave of Eastern Ghouta near the Syrian capital. Jaysh al-Islam
will have to clear barricades and provide maps of minefields that they have laid in the area.
The militants were set to begin withdrawing from the city of Douma on Sunday, the head of the
Russian Defense Ministry's Syrian Reconciliation Center, Major General Yury Yevtushenko has
said.
So...were the negotiations going on while supposedly Syrian was attacking with some sort of
chem bombs?? Weird.
Also, the number of injured and dead has escalated very unbelievably. From about 15 to
thousands!!
"... I don't think this Skripal incident was staged. They went out for dinner. Caught very bad food poisoning. British intelligence and May's government jumped on this incident to blame it on Russia. May's poll number were down, and her handling of British exit from the EU was horrendous. This gave her all she needed to get back on her feet politically. ..."
"... White helmets and the Coventry MI6 asset not working in unison. I take it the Ghouta gas attack was supposed to have occurred at the peak of the Russia=novichok meme somewhere between 12th-20th March. ..."
"... Whereas it's clear that Bojo and the Tin Lady are playing a weak hand badly -- and have only been spared by the appalling complicity of virtually the entire panoply of Western media as information warfare adjuncts -- which is in itself a stunning and sickening display of power–it's not clear that Russia has played a stronger hand much more ably ..."
"... The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals, several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared: ..."
"... The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia ..."
The farce continues. As the Skripals are apparently alive and well the British government
has a problem. When they talk and tell the world that it was actually food poisoning and not a
chemical weapon attack that hit them, the government of Theresa May is toast. The Skripals have
to be kept isolated and eventually
vanished . The CIA might give them a new identity or lock them into one of its black sites.
The Skripals house and the Zizzy restaurant are to be destroyed. (Who will kill the hospital
doctors?)
The "doorknob" theory the UK spread to explain the alleged injury of one policeman is so
outrageously stupid that many doubt it. To counter the mistrust, HMG comes up with an even
more implausible explanation :
Russian agents watched Sergei Skripal for a fortnight and chose to strike on a Sunday morning
so no postmen or delivery men would be exposed accidentally to the nerve agent. Any third
parties touching the door handle before the Skripals would have required the agents to
reapply the gel to the door handle, at the risk of being seen doing so.
Sure, that's why so many neighbors spoke of foreigners milling around in the street for two
weeks (not). And its why there was such a large manhunt right after the incident happened
(not).
Veterinarians in Salisbury post on Facebook that
they had contacted the police several times immediately after they learned that the Skripals
were admitted into hospital. They offered to take care of their cats and guinea pigs. The
police did not react at all. One cat escaped, the Guinea pigs died of thirst and the cat left
behind was so starved that it had to be put down.
i don't get it that britian is offering the skripals a new residence in the usa, or that
they are destroying their house... is destroying and getting rid of the evidence all that
have? i am sure they would like to get rid of the skripals too, not to mention the doctors
and whoever else that doesn't go along with the official script...
Has the penny dropped yet b that the Skripal episode was designed to condemn the Syrian
Government ahead of another staged chemical attack - this time to be hit hard. Those damn
Russians are launching chemical attacks in Britain, and now they are supplying chemicals to
the regime to poison Syrian children...
I don't think this Skripal incident was staged. They went out for dinner. Caught very bad
food poisoning. British intelligence and May's government jumped on this incident to blame it
on Russia. May's poll number were down, and her handling of British exit from the EU was
horrendous. This gave her all she needed to get back on her feet politically.
James Landale, BBC diplomatic correspondent writes
"For Russia, how far is it prepared to defend its allies' apparent use of chemical weapons
when its own apparent use of a nerve agent in the UK is subject to so much global
condemnation?"
Once the Skripals have been vanished, there would no longer be any reason to keep them
alive.
The Douma FF - too little too late? White helmets and the Coventry MI6 asset not working
in unison. I take it the Ghouta gas attack was supposed to have occurred at the peak of the
Russia=novichok meme somewhere between 12th-20th March.
Very nice writing, wit and "ohrwoerm" in general here.
I doubt that anything dramatic will happen in Syria on behalf of US retaliation or
anything sinister in that direction..
US and others have their people in Assad opposing forces and they know exactly what is going
on - on the ground.
What will be interesting is to observe how two Russian citizens will vanish and how the
truth will be pushed under the carpet while Russia will not let this just go.
I am still trying to find the plausable connection between the two. Could somebody
elaborate such option?
Whereas it's clear that Bojo and the Tin Lady are playing a weak hand badly -- and have
only been spared by the appalling complicity of virtually the entire panoply of Western media
as information warfare adjuncts -- which is in itself a stunning and sickening display of
power–it's not clear that Russia has played a stronger hand much more ably .
In sum, the questions, criticisms and suggested avenues of response suggested here, as
well as at the Off-Guardian, John Helmer's blog, the Saker, MoA, and strategic culture.org
(anyone who hasn't seen Rob Slane's 50 questions there really should), has been much richer
and potentially more efficacious than Russia's official demarches have so far been.
At the very least, can a writ of habeus corpus be filed? It will be clear to most of the
world by now that the UK does not want the Skripals to be heard from directly unless and
until their statements will not be those of "tools of the Kremlin." (But it may be that the
Russians are not so keen that they be heard from either, until what they will say can be
determined.)
I would have to think that this trial balloon to have the Skripals relocated with new
identities would be recognized by them as a threat (since at that point they will have been
disappeared). If the Russians are hesitating about what they might say, and about having a
writ of habeus corpus filed, the implied threat from the USUK might be enough to persuade the
Skripals that if they have information embarrassing for the USUK (or for Russia, for that
matter), they had better speak out now, before they are disappeared.
Is anybody getting the shivers like I am? Russian forces deployed in Syria, including S-400 and Pantsir-S1 air defense systems and
Sukhoi Su-30SM multirole fighters, have been put on a
combat alert , according to reports appearing from local sources in the country's
provinces of Tartus and Latakia where Russian military facilities are located.
The US is getting shivers. The knowledge that Russia is on combat alert - which I accept
as true - must be scaring the shit out of the US generals. Who wants to make the next call,
which ends in death? None of those chickenhawks, for sure.
If you watched Part 1 of the new "Putin" documentary by Andrei Kondrashev a couple of weeks
ago, you may not know that Part 2 is now out, at the Vesti YouTube channel:
If you're a fan, you'll find these two videos very inspiring. We've seen numerous snippets
from the past life of Putin, and anecdotes, but Kondrashev has pulled together more complete
narratives and interviews, including with Putin. Kondrashev is the guy who made "Crimea - the
Way Home" and was interviewing Putin in that one. They obviously have a good relationship.
The scale of Putin's achievement is almost impossible to grasp, and his sheer humanity is
amazing. He came from the honest, working poor, and has never lost this connection, never
stopped being one of them.
The Russians now officially want their money back (approx. 8.6b dollars) from Britain.
(One of the reasons why the Brits wrote the Skripal script? Preemptive strike?) The Coalition will hit SR sooner or later. Israel will move 40km into SR soil and call the
new area a buffer zone (between Golan Heights and the remaining Assad territory).
BTW, Somali authorities seize millions of dollars from UAE plane in Mogadishu.
The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia
using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing
their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and
babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals,
several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as
Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared:
In the UK case of May and BoJo, any alternative will result in a continuation of the
decline of the society. To be honest, much of the decline is baked in structural with the
loss of income from former "slave" colonies and the decline of North Sea oil and gas
reserves. Staying in the EU against the will of the people will continue to further drain
resources to Germany, which has structurally colonialized Western Europe.
France, like the UK, has extracted the wealth from their former colonies and facing a
reduction in tribute from these sources. Macron has attempted to maintain control of some
colonies such as Mali and really wants to conquer Syria. I suspect the meetings between
Macron and MbS will result in an agreement for Saudi Arabia to buy French weapons while
France getting financial aid to expand French troop bases in Syria.
Somehow, the current revolution in France is blacked out in the Western Media.
Videos of the current revolution are common on Youtube such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21_myERteQ
Almost all sectors of the French society are protesting against the neo-feudal policies of
Macron, FIRE economy participants and his dwarves in the National Assembly. There are strikes
among:
transportation (rail, airlines, rotating bus and subway workers)
hospital workers
students
teachers (including kindergarden)
retirees
postal workers
television workers
Government workers (Fonctionnaires de France)
lawyers and judges
sanitation workers
EDF and GDF workers (Electricite de France and Gas de France)
Macron has already deployed the CRS assassins and the street war will begin when EU police
and military invade to crush to protestors. This will be far more violent than May 1968 and
may usher in the 6th Republic. Unfortunately, Macron would prefer the cities to burn rather
than resign and turnover the government to the President of the Senate.
The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to
distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used
as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
These EU conflicts will not end peacefully as the system will fight back rather than step
aside.
b: . . . The Skripal's are apparently alive and well
I don't think we should assume that that is true.
Wouldn't their pets have been treated better if the authorities expected them to live?
- if they participated in the farce, they would have given some thought to their pets;
- if they were attacked or simply used for propaganda purposes, the authorities would care
for their pets so as to not further offend them.
Yulia's phone call was weird. Why would she tell her cousin that she won't get a visa? Now
the British are arranging for the Skripal's to disappear into witness protection. Will the
Skripal's ever be allowed to make a public appearance and face questions from reporters? It
appears that that they won't be allowed to. Either they are already dead or the British fear
what they might say if they make a public appearance.
Some mentioned on one of MoA's Skripal threads that we have to be careful about what we
believe and what we assume given that the authorities and press have proven to be biased.
Sounds like good advice.
It seems clear that escalation in Syria direct public attention away from Skripal's
/Salisbury. I don't think it's too much of a stretch (given all that has happened) to think
that that was planned for.
The US, Australia, Canada and 16 EU states are among the countries which have
expelled Russian envoys. Of the sixteen Commonwealth realms, with Queen Elizabeth II as their
head of state, fourteen of them have Russian embassies. But only three of the fourteen (UK,
Canada, Australia) have joined the expulsion.
One of the remaining eleven rebel countries, New Zealand, provided a reason. PM Ardern-- "While
other countries have announced they are expelling undeclared Russian intelligence agents,
officials have advised there are no individuals here in New Zealand who fit this profile. If
there were, we would have already taken action."
The US, Australia, Canada and 16 EU states are among the countries which have expelled
Russian envoys. Of the sixteen Commonwealth realms, with Queen Elizabeth II as their head of
state, fourteen of them have Russian embassies. But only three of the fourteen (UK, Canada,
Australia) have joined the expulsion.
One of the remaining eleven rebel countries, New Zealand, provided a reason. PM Ardern--
"While other countries have announced they are expelling undeclared Russian intelligence
agents, officials have advised there are no individuals here in New Zealand who fit this
profile. If there were, we would have already taken action."
@ 17 -- There seem to be lots of weasely things being said about the fate of the Skripal
pets. The big, fluffy black cat with amber eyes should in no way whatsoever have suffered
such depletion of calories that he had to be put down. I fear he was sent to Porton Down to
be "studied," and then "put down." If there was a water source --dripping faucet, water
closet, most houses have some place a pet can drink from other that his water bowl-- a cat
can survive weeks. My Maine Coon disappeared, but showed up about 3-4 weeks later, ragged
coat, unkempt, very thin, but, when given saline solution by the vet, immediately began to
act more normal. Took a while to get her muscle mass rebuilt, but she survived.
An article from The Sun, dated April 5th, has a photo of Nash Van Drake (what a pretty
cat), and states the specialist chemical weapons investigators did not gain access to the
Skripal residence UNTIL APRIL 4TH!!! We know from photographs that lots of folks wearing
moons suits were around for weeks -- why was nothing done to care for the pets?
I can't find it now through google, but I read a comment or tweet from a vet who had made
repeated offers to care for the pets. These pets should never have suffered to the extent
they did.
Someone in power did not want anyone outside those with enforced silence agreements to see
those pets.
The sickly mog was transported to the Ministry of Defence research laboratory at
Porton Down to be tested, where he was found to be severely malnourished.
The lab's top veterinary officer ruled the pet was in so much pain he should be put
down.
His body was then immediately incinerated to avoid contamination from the deadly nerve
agent Novichok.
Sergei's guinea pigs were also destroyed at the top secret military research
facility.
(If there is a hell, may these animal abusers end up there with long and miserable
afterlives.)
@22
The VT site is really slow, but it works. It looks explosive if true.
It links to this video in arabic which shows chemical weapons made in Germany and England
(Salisbury!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=oEhUk73t8BA
Britain is, France isn't. Britain destroyed its industrial sector under
Thatcher, and has nothing to offer faced with Brexit. France has a vast agricultural sector
which they can fall back on. The French like revolutions, that's why the present troubles.
Here's a video declaring revolution, from my university, if you can cope with the French,
note the dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHaV3Hm5g2A.
@22 text only...lots of good photos there...site is there for me. but it is very slow...
Last week, Russia and Syria announced the capture of British chemical weapon stockpiles in
East Ghouta along with the capture of a "coalition" command and chemical weapons facility
with all personnel. Taken from the combined statement censored from the western press, from
March 25, 2018
"The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russian captured a shipment of chemical weapons
destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in
Salisbury. Russian suspects that the Skripal incident is related as by their records,
Skiripal was working at Porton Down as a chemical weapons trafficker in partnership with a
Ukrainian firm. Russia denies attacking Skripal but admits he was under surveillance for his
activities involving support of terrorism in Syria and arms trafficking.
Russia also confirms that there are British, American, Israeli and Saudi intelligence
officers who were caught by the Syrian army in one of the heavily fortified operations rooms
during the invasion of the Syrian army and its allies of the East Ghouta."
VT asked the Syrian government for serial numbers and closeup photographs of chemical
weapons used. Syria sent them to us today.
Today, the Syrian Army captured the following German made poison gas shells, shipped into
Syria though Ukraine and Turkey and delivered to Jeish al Islam by a US CH53 helicopter,
according to statements "allegedly" gotten from POW interrogations.
American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they
were ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.
The Americans are still being held along with Israeli's while British prisoners are being
negotiated for. Sources in Damascus told us that representatives of Oman in Damascus
approached the Russian Office of Reconciliation on behalf of Britain for the return of
British chemical warfare personnel.
The shells in the above video are identified as VX gas from British stockpiles.
Russian officials in Syria informed Britain through Oman that they would have to directly
deal with Syria for the return of their personnel. We have received no further information
since, Damascus has remained silent on how or if negotiations were proceeding.
We do know that US Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a US Army combat veteran of
Iraq, met with both President Assad and Donald Trump, in order to arrange for covert
exchange, for substantial financial consideration, of captured Americans.
Initial introductions for this meeting were done by VT.
Israel bought back a Brigadier General (they claimed he was a colonel) in 2015 that we
know about.
The recent gas attack in Syria, timed as the last terrorists were surrendering for
relocation inside the Douma region of the Ghouta pocket, was planned personally by nominated
presidential advisor John Bolton and President Donald Trump personally, according to highly
placed sources.
Our sources in Russia, highest level, told us the attack was coming based on information
they received from US and Israeli prisoners taken in East Ghouta after an evacuation attempt
failed.
US casualty announcements in this effort have been released over the past few days as
happening in other areas to cover US complicity in terrorism. This dishonors families of the
dead, not just in the misuse of service members to support terrorism but in lying to families
about combat deaths. This shame goes directly to coward Trump!
"The Marine Corps identified four Marines killed on Tuesday in a CH-53E Super Stallion
helicopter crash near El Centro, Calif. The Marines were assigned to Marine Heavy Helicopter
Squadron (HMH) 465, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air
Station Miramar.
"The loss of our Marines weighs heavy on our hearts," Maj. Gen. Mark Wise, commanding
general of 3rd MAW, said in a statement.
"Our priority is to provide support for our families and HMH-465 during this critical
time."
The four Marines killed in the crash were Capt. Samuel A. Schultz, First Lt. Samuel D.
Phillips, Gunnery Sgt. Derik R. Holley and Lance Cpl. Taylor J. Conrad."
Other US casualties were listed as a US Air Force F16 that allegedly crashed at Nellis Air
Force Base in Nevada and up to 6 Americans who the US claims were killed by "Kurdish forces"
in the north of Syria.
All died in a failed combined US/Israel rescue operation to remove not only communications
and command personnel but also chemical weapons operations teams as well.
Last week, VT Damascus received evidence that Americans, US Army Special Forces along with
Israeli chemical weapons officers had been captured in East Ghouta. We were told that not
only was a command facility captured with modern weapons but a stockpile of British made 81mm
poison gas mortar shells, numbering in the hundreds, was seized as well.
Video's were viewed by former MOD weapons specialists who identified the green stripe on
the shells seized in East Ghouta as VX gas from British stockpiles.
The Obama administration investigated alleged chemical attacks in 2012 and 2013 and
advised Syria to turn over chemical stockpiles as a way of discouraging terrorists from
continuing to stage chemical attacks to blame on Damascus.
Most efforts had their roots in Britain's MI6 and its affiliates, the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights and the White Helmets.
The US is currently facing combined military operations against its occupied zone in Syria
by Iraq, Syrian and Russian forces. The US has been told to remove forces from Syria or face
a wider conflict.
The US and Russia have been at war against one another inside Syria for about a month
now.
Didn't want to clutter my post with links simply because a Copy&Paste from my post
into google search bar would provide anyone with the related sources.
Russia's Prosecutor General Yury Chaika demanded Britain to return more than 500 billion
rubles to the Russian Federation withdrawn by Russian citizens who are hiding from Russian
justice
"... "Russia is to blame" said Theresa May, without a shred of evidence. The UK government's baseless accusations have led the expulsion of Russian diplomats by 20 countries (18 countries of the EU, plus Canada and the US). and Moscow has responded by expelling Western diplomats. ..."
Skripal could not under any circumstances have been poisoned by a dangerous nerve agent at
his home.
Why?
Because the deadly nerve gas agent would have acted immediately and Skripal would not have
been able to go from his home (in his BMW or otherwise) to the shopping mall where he was
subsequently found (sitting on a bench) and taken to hospital together with his daughter
Yulia.
If Skripal and his daughter had been poisoned by a nerve agent (at his home), he would have
been found at his home rather than on a bench in the shopping mall. This in itself disqualifies
the official reports.
It also suggests that The Porton Down statement to the effect that "Russia was not the
source of the nerve agent" is a "red herring" (totally irrelevant). Why. Because the evidence
amply confirms that Skripal and his daughter were not poisoned by a nerve gas at Skripal's
home.
This obvious fact –which has not been the object of media coverage– is that
Scotland Yard's counterterrorism report on the "Russian hit squad" is not only fake , it
invalidates the UK government's "official" narrative, which is also fake. The lie discredits
the lie.
Lest we forget, this latest fake Scotland Yard counterterrorism report was preceded by a
string of "authoritative" (UK police, government) statements (analyzed and compiled by Stephen
Lendman):
First it was claimed father and daughter Skripal were poisoned by a military-grade nerve
agent while eating lunch at a Salisbury restaurant.
The narrative switched to Yulia unwittingly transporting the nerve agent planted in her
luggage on her flight from Moscow to London.
The story then shifted to Skripal's BMW, the deadly toxin smeared on its handle ,
Next came the claim about the nerve agent perhaps in aerosolized form affecting them
through the vehicle's ventilation system.
The latest official version claims the alleged nerve agent was smeared on the front door
of Skripal's home.
If any of the above accounts were valid, the Skripals, Bailey and at least 38 reported
others exposed to the same toxin would be dead – surely many others as well.
Yet a month later, no one died. Bailey recovered enough to be discharged from
hospitalization. Yulia's doctor said she improved markedly. Days earlier, Sergey was reported
in stable condition.
Russia was not the Source of the Nerve Agent: The Porton Down Statement. Boris Johnson and
the Foreign Office
Her Majesty's Foreign office is in crisis as a result of Porton Down's statement to the
effect that Russia was not the source of the nerve gas.
The justification for expelling Russian diplomats from a number of EU countries no longer
holds? There is no proof that the nerve gas was from Russia.
Will Boris Johnson be forced to resign?
"Russia is to blame" said Theresa May, without a shred of evidence. The UK government's
baseless accusations have led the expulsion of Russian diplomats by 20 countries (18 countries
of the EU, plus Canada and the US). and Moscow has responded by expelling Western
diplomats. Now that the hoax has been fully revealed. What next? Boris Johnson has been asked to explain. A political upheaval in several European countries? Will diplomatic relations be normalized
following these revelations? Unlikely unless there is a backlash from the EU governments which
were deliberately misled by the U.K.
At the moment both the UK government and the media are in denial. The latest statement from
Theresa May's office emphasizes that "[the UK government has] knowledge that within the last
decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination "
(quoted by the Washington Post, April 4, 2018)
The Media's Double Standards in the Coverage of Important Events. The Skripal Novichock
affair versus the Gaza Massacre
A sick Russian double agent and his daughter recovering in hospital, blamed on Vladimir
Putin
Versus
14 innocent Palestinians killed and more than 750 wounded
The "Gaza Massacre" is not front page news. It does not make the tabloids. "Israel is not to
Blame".
Yet these killings were ordered by the Netanyahu government.
Should these 20 Western countries not contemplate the timely expulsion of Israeli
diplomats?
The Porton Down lab at the center of the Skripal poisoning case has a dark history of secret
government-run human testing. The human trials were conducted as part of the UK's war
preparation against the Soviet Union. The military laboratory at Porton Down was the hub of
Britain's biological weapons trials between 1939 and 1989. Ministry of Defence scientists
conducted chemical
experiments on
at least 20,000 military personnel and more than 100 secret germ warfare tests on members
of the public in preparation for a feared chemical attack from the Soviet Union.
This year, the lab was thrust back into the headlines when it was given the responsibility
of determining the substance used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal. The lab's chief executive
has since confirmed the team are
unable to identify the " precise source " of the nerve agent, and the Foreign Office
has denied claiming it was
from Russia – despite Boris Johnson's assertions on just that
point.
The government-run experiments on military personal seriously breached ethical standards,
according to an official report released in 2006. It
followed years of complaints from veterans claiming to have suffered lasting damage to their
health as a result of the trials. During the experiments Porton
scientists dripped liquid nerve gas on the bare arms of 440 men and at one point tested nerve
gas on eight men without the trial participants knowing what it really was. Six men were
exposed to mustard gas for five consecutive days – three of whom suffered burns to their
scrotums. Around 450 men had their eyes exposed to sarin nerve gas.
A 60-page government report released in 2002
detailed tests which exposed millions of people to harmful substances. The tests consisted of
releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and microorganisms over vast areas of Britain –
unbeknownst to the population below.
It also revealed that military personnel were instructed to tell any " inquisitive
inquirer " that the trials were part of a research project into weather and air
pollution.
Designed to test Britain's vulnerability if deadly clouds were released over the country, in
most cases trials used alternatives to biological weapons such as serratia marcescens bacteria
or zinc cadmium sulphide, which was dropped on the public in huge
amounts to mimic germ warfare.
The government insisted the chemical involved was safe, however cadmium is recognised as a
cause of lung cancer and was considered a chemical weapon during World War II. Families living
in the tested areas who have children born with birth defects have demanded
a public inquiry.
In another trial a military ship sprayed bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii,
which mimics anthrax, over a five to 10-mile radius along the south coast of England between
1961 and 1968, exposing more than 1 million people to the micro-organisms. In trials designed
to test the vulnerability of government buildings and public transport, bacteria were released
on the London Underground, traveling about 10 miles.
The report also confirmed that during World War II Porton Down produced millions of cattle
cakes spiked with anthrax which could be dropped into Germany to kill livestock on a mass
scale.
Ulf Schmidt, Professor of Modern History at the University of Kent,
estimated in his 2015 book 'Secret Science,' that up to 30,000 secret chemical warfare
experiments were carried out during that time period at Porton Down. It has also been
claimed in most cases the military men were not given enough information to properly give
consent.
The 100-year-old lab has a reported annual budget of £500 million
and employs 3,000 scientists. In 2008 the Ministry of Defence awarded £3 million in
compensation to 360 tested veterans without admitting liability.
Prime Minister May is seen at around the 0:40 (depending upon clip version) mark beating the
cat against a wall.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
is the "Burn the Witch" scene. With Putin as the witch it is a fair representation of the type
of justice and deep thought applied to the Skripal case.
Doctors at the Salisbury District Hospital announced today that Sergej Skripal's health is
rapidly improving. He and his daughter Yulia will likely be well again.
It is unlikely that any targeted poisoning with a real 'military grade' nerve agent would
have allowed for such an outcome. This brings us back to food poisoning as a possible cause of
the Skripals' ordeal.
A friend of this blog, Tore , sent us his considerations which we publish
below. He suggest that shellfish poisoning, which is caused by a neurotoxin known as Saxitoxin
or STX, is the real culprit of the Skripal incident. He explains how this would fit to the
observable behavior of the British government and other participants in the drama. In my view
his theory has significant merit.
On Wednesday the niece of Sergej Skripal, Viktoria Skripal, received a phone call from Yulia
Skripal. She was interviewed by a Russian TV station and
suggested that food poisoning might have been the real cause of the calamities her
relatives were in:
"Did they eat a dish that one cannot eat, or is it banned in England?
"The first signs when they were found were very similar to fish poisoning."
Victoria intended to visit the UK and to bring Yulia back home to Moscow. The United Kingdom
just
rejected Victoria Skripal's visa application because she "did not comply with the
immigration rules." No further explanation was given.
For those who have not read our previous posts on the issue we offer a short recap of the
case. Regular readers may want to scroll down to Tore 's part.
Sergej and Yulia Skripal were found on a public bench in Salisbury at about 4pm on March 4.
They had collapsed, were conscienceless and were brought into emergency care at the Salisbury
District Hospital. Local media wrote of a potential Fentanyl overdose.
Half an hour before the Skripal's collapsed they had eaten at Zizzi, a seafood and pizza
outlet.
Over the next days the British government started to make a fuzz about the case. Sergej
Skripal was a British spy who had been caught in Russia, put into jail and, in 2010, exchanged
for Russian spies. The British government hinted of Russian involvement in the Salisbury
incident.
But that story smelled fishy from its very beginning. To target an exchanged spy would
guarantee that no further exchanges would ever happen. Sergej Skripal had
links to the "dirty dossier" about Donald Trump that was created for the Hillary Clinton
campaign. Russia had no good motive, others potentially had one. If there was something
nefarious going on it seemed unlikely that Russia was involved.
I now believe that the British government jumped onto the case because it needed to divert
attention from the seriously bad results of the Brexit negotiations in Brussels. There are
local elections coming up in May and Theresa May's Tory party was lagging in the polls. (There
may have been additional reasons related to a planed 'chemical weapon' surprise in the
east-Ghouta campaign in Syria.)
Whatever it was - the spin-masters in Downing Street 10 saw a chance to convert the
poisoning of the Skripals into something big that would help their political aims. The general
push was to blame Russia. The idea to speak of the fearsome nerve-agent 'Novichok'
came from a spy drama that had just run on British TV.
On March 12 the British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke in Parliament and claimed that the
Skripals were 'attacked' with 'Novichok', a "military grade nerve agent of a type developed by
Russia". It was her "45 minutes"
moment . Russia was declared guilty without any evidence. Britain and other NATO countries
expelled Russian diplomats.
'Novichok' is a name for a group of chemicals that are indeed deadly. But Russia never had a
'Novichok' program. It had worked
on a different class of chemicals than the ones described
in Vil Mirzayanov's 'Novichok' book . Moreover, if 'Novichok' chemicals were involved than
Russia was only one of many suspect. The formulas for 'Novichoks' are known, various military
laboratories have made some and any decent organic chemistry laboratory
can create them too. The U.S., which had produced some of the 'Novichok' agents for itself,
had long
told its diplomats to avoid any discussions about them.
The first serious unraveling of the dubious case came on March 18 when a doctor at the
Salisbury District Hospital
publicly denied that any of its patients had been hurt by a nerve agent. We wrote at that
time:
Commentator Noirette had suggested here that the Skripal case was about food
poisoning or a food allergy, not nerve agents. The Skripals had visited a fish restaurant one
hour before they were found. The letter points into a similar direction. Food poisoning would
also explain why a doctor who gave emergency help to the unconscious Yulia Skripal for over
30 minutes was not effected at all.
To my best knowledge none of the main stream media picked up on the doctor's letter.
It seems that the 'Novichok' fairy-tale the British government plays to us provides for a
happy ending - the astonishing and mysterious resurrection of the victims of a "military
grade" "five to eight times more deadly than VX gas" "nerve agent" "of a type developed by"
Hollywood.
Happy Easter!
The alleged nerve agent should have killed anyone who came even into slight contact with it.
Survival did not fit to the earlier claims by the British government.
Now, just in time for the Orthodox Christian Easter, the condition of Sergej Skripal is
reported to be rapidly
improving. Another Resurrection! Hallelujah!
In my view all the stories we were told about 'Novichok', the 'doorknob' or a 'Russian
attack' are fairy tales. They simply do not make sense.
Commentators of this blog,
Noirette ,
TomGard and others, had discussed several theories of food poisoning. Food poisoning
makes sense but none of the ones discussed here fitted the picture of the case. Last week
Tore , a friend of this blog from Norway, sent me his theory which makes eminent sense
to me.
--- Tore writes :
Craig Murray's described
the pressure on Porton Down to establish that a nerve agent was used in the alleged Skripal
attack. I use 'alleged attack', because there is a fair chance that this was no attack, only a
serious food poisoning from the very start.
The Skripals had a seafood risotto pesce with king prawns, mussels and squid rings at Zizzi,
as reported
here in the Daily Mail on March 6.
This is a dish with a well known reputation as a source of shellfish poisoning.
Symptoms of PSP could begin within a few minutes and up to 10 hours after consumption.
Symptoms of PSP can include:
...
...
Respiratory difficulty, salivation, temporary blindness, nausea and vomiting may also
occur.
In extreme cases, paralysis of respiratory muscles may lead to respiratory arrest and
death within two to twelve hours after consumption. Seriously affected people must be
hospitalized and placed under respiratory care.
Unfortunately, there is no antidote for PSP toxins; however, supportive medical care can
be life saving . For example, persons whose breathing muscles become paralyzed can be put on
a mechanical respirator and given oxygen to help them breath, and people who develop a
cardiac arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm) can be given medications to stabilize their heart
rhythm.
The similarity with symptoms and effect derived from a nerve agent are striking, but no
surprise:
In fact the substance at work in a case of paralytic seafood poison is a neurotoxin called
Saxitoxin (STX) which is among the most potent poisons found in nature. It works the same way
as a nerve agent: It acts on the neurons, preventing normal cellular function and leading to
paralysis and in worst case death. In fact Saxitoxin is so potent that it was weaponized by the
U.S. and used as a chemical weapon - a nerve agent.
The U.S. developed Saxitoxin into a chemical weapon in the 1960s. The U.S. military
designation is TZ. It was also used by the CIA for covert operations and liquidations as
evidenced by the Church commission - see: E xcerpts of CIA inventory 1 , 2 .
Serotoxin is registered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
as evidenced in the Wikipedia article Saxitoxin . The agent stays active even after
boiling or steaming.
Now back to Porton Down and the pressure to come up with the 'traces of a nerve agent'. The
Saxitoxin could obviously pass as a nerve agent, because it is a nerve agent - but without
mention of its origin - the food poisoning.
The nerve agent claim was released by police on March 7, three days after the incident.
According to the Daily Mail article mentioned above, the hospital alarmed the
police the day after, on March 5, when the staff became aware of Skripal's 'spy credentials',
probably through BBC which first brought the news. This means Porton Down at the most had two
days from first tests to the conclusion 'nerve agent' announced on the 7th.
This also implies that the hospital probably treated the Skripals for a food poisoning from
the start, until they became aware of Skripals credentials the day after. This fits with the
letter to the Times from Stephen Davies, the hospital doctor.
The media storm had been going on for a week when Theresa May on March 12 entered parliament
and announced the 'Novichok'. The blame had been on Russia from the first moment.
Speculation:
Now suppose the government in the meantime had become aware they had a weak case from the
start - because they had rushed Porton Down to a premature conclusion?
There would be no way back for May. The die had been cast. The government had walked out on
a limb from the start, now they had to continue the theater by naming the agent.
No nerve agent would suit their narrative better than 'Novichok'. Developed in USSR, a
substance with some foggy features and many variants - as opposed to other more well known
agents with distinct features. And most important an agent that is not listed in OPCW and which
was deliberately chosen to confuse. [b adds: 'Novichok' was also known to the British and U.S.
public as a 'fearsome Russian agent' through a current spy drama on TV. It increased the
propaganda value.]
The initial reluctance to involve the OPCW also fits into this picture: the decision to
involve OPCW came after May had landed the Novichok claim in parliament on March 12.
The day before, on March 11, police found traces of a nerve agent in the Zizzi
restaurant.
Note that the police inside is unprotected - bigger
Did they find the mussel in the risotto? Or 'Novichok'?
More than three weeks into the investigation this is, as far as I know, the only confirmed
police find of traces of the nerve agent. Zizzi fits in perfectly as the origin of the
poisoning considering the 40 minutes it took before the Skripals passed out on the bench.
Though I wonder how a "military grade nerve agent", destined to kill instantly on the
battlefield, took that long to incapacitate the Skripals.
I am no doctor, nor a specialist in chemistry - only a retired journalist working with open
sources. There are so many curiosities with this case, so many speculations, ...
Here in Norway we have an expression called blodtåke - best translated as blood fog -
when all the media are rushing blindly in one direction, without asking the most elementary
questions.
After I wrote this they found 'Novichok' on the door of the Skripals' home, which makes it
even more unlikely, considering the time frame.
Did they have to divert attention from the restaurant as origin of the poisoning?
There are of course some holes in the above - just regard this as an idea to go along the
line of food poisoning.
End of Tore's deliberations.
---
b here:
Tore's theory of food poisoning with Saxitoxin makes sense. It is a fitting
explanation for what happened in Salisbury and for the murky tale the British government tries
to sell.
(update)
Commenters noted that the theory does not immediately explain what happened to Detective
Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was also treated in the hospital but less severely effected than the
Skripals. Off-Guardian
noted on March 23:
It was announced today that Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey – allegedly the third victim
of the alleged "nerve agent" poisoning in Salisbury, UK – has been released from
hospital.
Bailey did not speak to the press, and no photographs or film of him leaving the premises
and going home have yet emerged.
...
Where Bailey was poisoned, and how he was poisoned is still not clear – which is
puzzling of itself. Was it while attending the Skripals as a first-responder, as
claimed by Theresa May (improbable on the face of it, since CID officers in Britain do
not act as first-responders). Or did he, on the contrary,"
have no direct contact with the Skripals ", as put out by the Daily Mail? Was he poisoned
while searching the Skripals home ? Or
was it somewhere else entirely?
And why did he become poisoned when no one else at the scene, and indeed no one else
anywhere in Salisbury fell ill, or even showed signs of contamination in their bloodwork?
If Bailey was on the scene on Sunday afternoon, it was likely not because he was on duty,
but because he happened to be in the area. Did he have a private lunch? At Zizzi's? With
mussels? We do not know and the government won't say.
(end update)
One of these days the Skripals, Nick Bailey, the doctors at the hospital, or some of the
people at Porton Down will talk and let us know the truth.
The Zizzi website says that the
restaurant in Salisbury is still - four and a half weeks after the incident - "temporarily
closed". If it served healthy food and the Skripals were really poisoned by touching a doorknob
at their home why would that still be the case?
But do not take off your tinfoil hat just yet.
If Saxitoxin was the cause of the Skirpals' illness, the story has still potential for a
decent spy drama. Was the poison in the mussels Zizzi's served of natural occurrence, or had
someone at the CIA rummaged through its old inventory? Who applied the dosage?
In another message Tore notes that there is a foreign member in the British
Joint
Intelligence Commission which advises Downing Street:
Ever since World War II, the chief of the London station of the United States Central
Intelligence Agency has attended the JIC's weekly meetings.
These connections might yet bring us back to Skripal's participation in the 'dirty dossier'
about Trump which MI6 agent Chris Steele prepared for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The U.S.
and the British intelligence services under Clapper and Brennan waged a war against then
candidate Donald Trump. They did not want him to win the election under any circumstance. Were
the Skripals late casualties of this fight?
But no. I would not trust that story any more than I trust the British government's current
tale.
Another possible explanation, more likely that the election manipulation mentioned above, is
a false flag incident solely created to incriminate Russia. It would be a reproduction of the
1994 Operation
Hades , a highly propagandized case made up by the German spy service BND to incriminated
Russia with a (faked) plutonium smuggling case.
Then again - if it looks like food poisoning, Occam's razor says, it might just be that -
food poisoning.
The Skripals' beloved animals though, were
admittedly killed by the British government. The Skripal's should sue the responsible
persons to hell for committing this murder and for
lying about its circumstances.
The United Kingdom is headed for a break-up.
Not
today or tomorrow, mind you but, sooner than anyone would like to handicap, especially in this age of
coalition government at any cost.
By responding to the alleged poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Yulia with histrionics normally reserved for The View, Theresa May's government has set the
stage for its own collapse.
Government's fall when the people lose confidence in them. May has bungled everything she has
touched as Prime Minister, from Brexit talks and her relationship with Donald Trump to her response
(or lack thereof) to the escalating level of domestic terrorism and her pathetic campaign during last
year's snap election.
When I confront such obvious ineptitude it's not hard to believe that wasn't the plan to begin
with.
Since her initial meeting with Donald Trump after his election where it looked like the two would
get along, May has become more and more belligerent to both him and his base. While he continues to
affirm our special relationship "The Gypsum Lady" as I like to call her makes mistake after mistake.
The latest of which is pushing everyone east of the Dneiper River in Ukraine to denounce the
Russians and President Vladimir Putin personally for this alleged poisoning in Salisbury a month ago.
The result of which was the largest round of diplomatic expulsions in a century, if not ever.
And now that the whole "Russia did it" narrative has been skewered by May's own experts at Porton
Downs, she stands alone along with her equally inept and embarrassing Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
and Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson.
The calls for their jobs will only intensify here.
Tinker, Tailor, Traitor, Spy
The whole thing felt from the beginning like a bad Ian Fleming novel. I said from the beginning
this this was a classic false flag to gin up anti-Russian fervor while May's negotiator betrayed
Brexit and pushed to remove Russian businesses from doing business in London.
I'm sorry but it's not a stretch to think this whole thing was cooked up by MI-6. In fact, that's
been my operating assumption for a month now.
The problem was, until a few days ago, I didn't have a good enough reason why.
Putting diplomatic pressure on Russia on behalf of the U.S.'s crazed neoconservative Deep State
just didn't seem like a big enough reward. Neither did cutting Russian businesses out of European
banks to stop contractor and creditor payments associated with the Nordstream 2 pipeline.
Those things felt like nice bonus objectives but not main goals.
And it wasn't until the lead scientists at Porton Downs left May, Johnson and Williamson out to
hang on Monday that the full operation became clear.
By stating that they could not confirm the
origin of the Novichok nerve agent used in the attack on the Skripals the Porton Downs officials
destroyed the credibility of The Gypsum Lady's government.
Therefore, this operation was always about undermining May's government to the point of a
no-confidence vote. This would then be the ultimate betrayal of Brexit in order to preserve the
U.K.'s position in the European Union, which is favored by the political and old-monied British elite.
In short, this was a coup attempt.
And don't think for a second that this is not plausible. Remember it was Margaret Thatcher's own
most trusted people who betrayed her to get the U.K. into the European Union in the first place. This
was why they brought down The Iron Lady.
So, here's the scene:
May and Johnson both get told by trusted advisors that there is incontrovertible proof of Russia's
hand in this. They go with this information with confidence to parliament, the U.N., high-level
meetings with foreign leaders and the press.
They convince their allies to stand strong against the evil Russians who is everyone's bid 'baddie'
at this point.
Trump has to go along with this nonsense even though he is obviously skeptical otherwise there will
be an uproar in the U.S. press about him betraying our most trusted ally for his puppet-master Putin.
To be honest, I don't think these bozos, May and Johnson, were in on the plan. I think they were
being played all along and now will be the patsies.
Just like May was played last year, calling for snap elections. The minute she called them there
were terror attacks all over London, marches against her over public safety. A media campaign which
puffed up Jeremy Corbyn, who they are now destroying for his rightful trepidation about this fairy
tale MI-6 is spinning.
The goal was to weaken May and get Labour back in charge. Corbyn would then be cast aside and a
Tony Blair clone installed as Prime Minister to scuttle Brexit and restore order to
the galaxy,
Europe.
Unfortunately, the DUP got enough of the vote to re-elect a very weakened May and things have limped
along for nearly a year.
Crisis on Infinite Empires
The problem with this however, is like all plans of those desperate to cling to vestiges of former
glory (and the U.K. is definitely the poster child for that), is the crisis of confidence it will
engender.
Make no mistake, Brexit was no mistake.
It's what the people of Britain wanted and they want it more now than in 2016. So, they don't dare
call for a new referendum. But, they are also looking at a third parliamentary vote in as many years.
And that doesn't scream confidence no matter how much markets would prefer the legal status quo.
Opposition to Brexit comes from the entrenched monied power, not from any adherence to globalist
ideology.
But, if Brexit is betrayed through this hackneyed farce of a spy thriller, it won't sit
well with the British people.
Scotland's call for a second referendum will continue to grow
and the Pound will fall alongside the competitiveness of British labor still trapped within a
euro-zone that has done nothing but choke the life out of the economy.
The Pound will begin to sink into irrelevancy as this unfolds. It won't happen overnight, but we
will look back on these events and see them as the trigger points for the path of history.
Between these things and the toxic levels of political correctness as it pertains to Muslim
immigration, the insanity of London liberals and the de facto police state the U.K. has become and you
have a recipe for political unrest that will not be pretty.
Brexit was meant to be the peaceful revolution that put the nail in the coffin of the march to one
world government. It is about to be nullified.
When it is the sun will finally set on what's left of the British Empire.
Support this work by signing up with
my Patreon
Page
and gain access to the Gold Goats 'n Guns Investment Newsletter, the Private Blog as well as
our private community on Slack.
The revelation that the
animals had died caused
considerable reaction on social
media with many wondering why it
had taken officials so long to
find the animals despite so much
police activity at the home.
The EUSSR will be
destroyed, there were
attempts by UKIP and
various others to
democratize it a decade or
two ago and they were
unsucessful, the protocols
says that all states must
be democratic before world
government can be
implemented, both the EUSSR
and PRC stand in their way.
"In another major
misjudgement by the US in
January, the supposedly
moderate Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson announced
that the US would be
keeping its forces in Syria
after the defeat of Isis,
and intended to get rid of
President Bashar al-Assad
and roll back Iranian
influence. This ambition
was largely
fantasy
, but
the Russian and Turkish
reaction was
real
. Four
days after Tillerson's
arrogant declaration, the
Turkish army poured into
northern Syria with Russian
permission and within two
months had eliminated the
enclave of Afrin, inhabited
by Kurds who are the only
US ally in Syria. "
As Skripal-Gate Collapses, Will May's
Government Be Next?
My response:
ENGLAND is CORRUPT and an UNGODLY place to
live. If you have been paying attention, it
was these S.O.B.s who were spying on TRUMP
under the direction of the "OBOZO"
administration.
This kind of thing really angers the SHIT
out of me. Since when does ENGLAND have any
input into AMERICA's POTUS election process.
BASTARDS!!!
I HOPE THE WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY CRASHES and
BURNS. JAMES BOND can go pound salt.
So in this case the chain of events looks like: food poisoning -> discovery that the
incident can be used as for the nasty PR campaign against Russia and save May government ->
Novichok claims -> Novichok contamination
The deafening silence of neoliberal MSM is an interesting sign that something went wrong with the PR attack on Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... I doubt that the police were responsible, though it is inevitable that they will be saddled with the blame. I have no doubt that there are police procedures that would see the police remove all pets before sealing a premises. But I doubt very much that the police were anything other that props by that stage i.e. they were not doing anything by the book but, rather, they were Doing As They Were Told. ..."
"... IMHO it could have been food poisoning and it fits the timing perfectly but doesn't explain all the other traces of whatever agent they are presenting as evidence. I still feel that these idiots used an old stock of Foliant agents recovered during the cleanup of the Uzbekistan lab. I believe that Porton Down made their own stock from the formulae they recovered. This doesn't explain the presence of the Novichok A234 which was never developed or a part of the Soviet research.It was developed at Edgewood Arsenal back in the late 90's and published back then. However, the weasel wording of the claims by DSTL are that is was highly likely (read that as we are guessing) that there was Novichok or from the novichok family (meaning it could also be anything). I am a scientists and we use very precise language when describing something. I also have a forensic background and you would never put something like this vague report out there. It is actually embarrassing to be this vague and it would be tossed as evidence. ..."
"... There is not one single mention of a poisoned spy Skripal story nowhere near headline or important news columns to be noticed or seen. Like the story never happened. I am saying the BBC, The Guardian and CNN just forgot that there was any news concerning Russia poisoning or even mention of it. Really? ..."
"... The simplest explanation why the British government should have taken food poisoning as an opportunity for a global PsyOp in a manner, that was definitely highly unprofessional and panic-like, is still the repeated Russian warnings of an imminent large-scale chemical False Flag attack in Syria, to which an attack on the government district was to follow, plus ..."
"... On the other hand, Russia would not waste the opportunities of the evidence on Public Relation. The Kremlin would refer it to reasonably selected confidential military and civil contacts within the EU to bolster the rifts within the imperial camp, especially transatlanticists and their opponents in the European Council. Brexit could have become even more detrimental for the UK. ..."
"... How does Yulia Skripal know that "nobody here" will give her cousin a visa? Is she familiar with the intricacies of the Visa process? The whole phone call sounds like the acoustic equivalent of the device ships in StarTrek have installed - a deflector shield. Calm down things, make her cousin not apply for a visa. This phone call came (just like that) after her cousin started to go public in Russia and probably was identified as a potential disruptor. Yulia Skripal tried to make her not apply for a visa - by assuring her everything and everyone is OK (including Sergey) and then, when Victoria insisted, tackling the Visa issue right away - don't apply the message is, no need to come to the UK and see me. It appears this had to be avoided at all costs. ..."
"... Skripal and a 33-year-old woman are believed to have come into contact with a poisonous substance at the city's Zizzi restaurant, which has since been closed by emergency teams. ..."
Thanks to MoA, the government/media Salisbury England Information Operation doesn't add up.
If exposed to military grade nerve agent 5-8 times more toxic than America's VX, the Skripals
and first responders would be dead. If food poisoning, there should be more victims at
Zizzi's but not the police detective. Clearly the story was made up fast without the facts.
Their pets were incinerated for god's sake. The observable goal of the British Hierarchy is
to stress Russia with more sanctions and to escalate the Syrian world war plus a cover up PM
May's catastrophic handling of Brexit.
As documented here, there are too many coincidences to be happenstance. I am leaning
towards an oligarch faction contracted out a mob hit to take out a "contributor" to Steele's
Dodgy Dossier to give it credence and scare the crap out of everyone else involved. The
Established as an afterthought tasked the incident to promote their greater
ambitions.
'Health Canada advises Canadians to limit their consumption of lobster tomalley to the
equivalent of one lobster tomalley daily for adults, due to the possible presence of PSP.
Health Canada has recommended that children not consume lobster tomalley.'
No notice on limiting shellfish - only lobster re PSP at that link. If bivalve shellfish
could be more toxic than lobster, would a limit also have been mentioned? By weight, if
shellfish acquire similar or less toxicity than lobster then the Skripals must have had a
good feed of mussels.
If Skripals werent in it from the start, they will HAVE to say whatever UK tells them to,
otherwise they might "relapse" and no Easter miracles this time. At least until they get out
of UK. If they will refuse to leave UK because they "fear evil ruskies", then we will know it
was all a sham.
@ Yeah, Right | 67
Same thing I was thinking, it doesnt make any sense. Bottom line: police sealed pets to
starve to death (due to neglect?), and poor cat which was still alive was killed too. Any
normal person by seeing hungry cat would give her food, but no, it was "more merciful" just
to kill it. Worse than animals.. And of course, to avoid any investigation later, burned
them.
I searched using Google for "saxitoxin deaths frequency," which turns up lots of papers on
the subject. From the abstract of one titled, "Marine algal toxins: origins, health effects,
and their increased occurrence" and published in 2000:
"Over the past three decades, the frequency and global distribution of toxic algal
incidents appear to have increased, and human intoxications from novel algal sources have
occurred. This increase is of particular concern, since it parallels recent evidence of
large-scale ecologic disturbances that coincide with trends in global warming."
The paper suggests such poisoning is rare, but obviously it is possible. Further browsing
for "shellfish poisoning" and so forth indicates that such poisoning is frequent enough for
health agencies and governments to warn people about it. Perhaps one could calculate the
frequency by which Russia poisons people, and compare the frequency with which people are
accidentally poisoned by saxitoxin to form a better judgment of the situation.
(First time leaving a comment on this blog. I found your blog somewhat recently because of
Naked Capitalism, and having been reading your posts ever since. )
...
They cannot hide from the truth. The whole world is watching. No one believes Highly
Likely.
...
Posted by: Red Ryder | Apr 6, 2018 6:16:45 PM | 11
Especially when one recalls that 'Highly Likely' is the tr-r-raditional excuse used by the
Judeo-Christian Barbarians, since 2001, for slaughtering 'suspects' (from a safe distance)
without properly identifying them.
All those Afghan Wedding parties, Chelsea Manning's infamous Collateral Murder gun-sight
video in Iraq. And the CIA's Drone campaign is ongoing.
Sorry, but the odds of these two getting food poisoning is one thing but they just happen to
be THE SKRIPALS! getting food poisoning? - no way! Even if there was bad mussels or even if
dozens came down with food poisoning, still THE SKRIPALS just happen to eat there - what are
the odds? IMPOSSIBLE!
UNLESS... the food poisoning was intentional (to silence him re Steele) and then blame
Russia. But if food poisoning was the method, then TPTB would have known better than to go
the nerve agent route. UNLESS... they planned it all along to plant nerve agent but not use
it on the Skripals due to the danger posed to others.
In that case the culprit was norovirus (bane of passenger cruise liners, I believe)
transmitted through raw oysters, improperly prepared razorback clams and staff practices
(such as staff working while they were still sick) that enabled the spread of the
norovirus.
WRW @ 78: Isn't it just possible that if the Skripals had had food poisoning, their condition
would have been treated the same as any other patient with food poisoning - but once hospital
staff noticed that Sergei Skripal had some connection with British security through checking
his medical records, they called police and from then on the Skripals were treated
differently from other patients, and were kept confined or sedated while the authorities
decided that they must have been targeted by Moscow or saw an opportunity to bash the
Russians?
Sometimes, sooner or later, incidents can happen in such a way that most observers would
believe there must be more to them than coincidence and that such incidents must have been
planned. They needn't be planned - all that's needed is someone or a group of people looking
for opportunities to exploit situations, use innocent victims and throw blame onto third
parties.
...
The truth is that (while China may eclipse the US by 2150) it is very likely that this will
be Russia's century. I believe the west know this very well and will do everything they can
to capture Russia's resources and that means continuing isolation of, and tension and
conflict with, Russia.
Btw: If you add Chinese industry, Russian resources and OBOR together it is obvious
that the end of western dominion of the world is coming to an end and that, unfortunately,
greatly increases the risk of a major war.
Posted by: Ace | Apr 6, 2018 9:07:04 PM | 48
That makes a certain amount of sense but overlooks a vital component of the current World
Order. If the current World Order wasn't dominated and controlled by Greedy Rich Pigs then
TRADE would be the friendly and logical way to address any global imbalances in local water,
food and resources availability (to which one could add Funds/Finance).
The underlying problem is, imo, the factoid that the Greedy Rich Pigs crowd got rich by
monopolising essential industries and resources centuries ago and don't want to surrender
their 'right' to OWN everything of value, including politicians, and to continue their
Command of the Gravy Train.
I doubt that the police were responsible, though it is inevitable that they will be
saddled with the blame. I have no doubt that there are police procedures that would see the
police remove all pets before sealing a premises. But I doubt very much that the police were
anything other that props by that stage i.e. they were not doing anything by the book but,
rather, they were Doing As They Were Told.
IMHO it could have been food poisoning and it fits the timing perfectly but doesn't
explain all the other traces of whatever agent they are presenting as evidence. I still feel
that these idiots used an old stock of Foliant agents recovered during the cleanup of the
Uzbekistan lab. I believe that Porton Down made their own stock from the formulae they
recovered. This doesn't explain the presence of the Novichok A234 which was never developed
or a part of the Soviet research.It was developed at Edgewood Arsenal back in the late 90's
and published back then. However, the weasel wording of the claims by DSTL are that is was
highly likely (read that as we are guessing) that there was Novichok or from the novichok
family (meaning it could also be anything). I am a scientists and we use very precise
language when describing something. I also have a forensic background and you would never put
something like this vague report out there. It is actually embarrassing to be this vague and
it would be tossed as evidence.
What I think happened was they used old stock (which would have the correct chemical
fingerprint from Russia having been made there in the first place) but after 38 years the
potency is way off. If the agent was in fact 10 times stronger than VX then perhaps there was
just enough potency left to cause what we saw in the Skripals. This, of course, assumes that
the UK attacked them in the first place which explains their certainty of what agent it was.
However, if it was in fact A234 then you could never attribute this to Russia as it is
actually an American product. If it was one of the original Foliant agents that is something
different but that is not what was claimed. The finding of agent on the doorknobs is
ridiculous and a very bad misstep by the UK. These agents are viscous (like honey) and smell
horrible similar to your household bug sprays. Putting it on a doorknob would be patently
obvious to anyone touching the door and you would examine the goo on your finger and smell
it. Obviously, this didn't happen. So, if agent is present on the doorknob then it was
deliberately put there well after the fact. These agents can be soluble in water (2 of the
Foliant agents are water soluble and 2 are not). If so, it was raining in Salisbury which
would have removed it by rainfall dilution. If it isn't water soluble it was there for 3
weeks.
The persistence of these agents in the environment is not long and it rapidly begins to
decompose, especially if in the presence of sunlight (UV), and disappears. When salting a
battlefield with nerve agent we expect it to remain lethal for 72 hours. These weapons are
designed specifically to keep the enemy forces from travelling through a contaminated area
and the purpose of chemical agents is denial of terrain. You use it when you have a front
line which is too large to defend with your forces at hand or to funnel the enemy attack into
an area where you have amassed your defenses. This is what this stuff is designed to do. You
can also use it to mess up rear area support operations but that is a secondary use. Think of
it as an aerial delivered (artillery or aircraft) temporary minefield. The key word being
temporary. After all, this is the territory you are fighting over and it is useless if it is
permanently poisoned. As the FEBA moves you may end up occupying that area in the days
following a defensive operation. It is possible; however, to attack through a contaminated
area and modern tanks now have air filtration and all combat troops have MOPP gear which will
protect a soldier in that environment. However, anyone who has practiced infantry assaults
wearing full MOPP gear knows how awful that is and how ineffective you are as a soldier. It
is hot, heavy, with poor visibility in a full mask, not to mention inadequate breathing which
is rough at best, plus you are also carrying your basic load so it is an awful experience.
Also by doctrine attacking forces need to have a 3 to 1 force superiority to be successful
and things like chemical agents on the battlefield are force multipliers whereas attacking
forces operating a full MOPP are suffering a force detractor. My point is it is an effective
way to mount a defense and no one would willingly attack through a contaminated area.
So, I see many problems trying to put this together and all of them add up to me to be a
false flag operation which was botched. All the subsequent actions by the UK government
including denial of consular privileges to see their citizens, failure to follow fixed
procedures as mandated by the CWC, long delay in reporting to the OPCW, failure to provide
any physical evidence (GC-MS printouts would be enough), taking the investigation away from
the police, not mounting a manhunt for the perpetrators, changing story over time and the
miraculous recovery of the victims all indicate to me a completely botched operation. I feel
sorry for the British citizens having a government as inept as this is. Of course, mine (the
USA) is far worse but I always respected the UK as being somewhat responsible. Now it looks
like it has fallen down to American levels of ineptitude.
Binary food-poisoning anyone ? With all this talk about creating these mysterious binary
nerve agents, did anyone consider a similar scenario involving two separate strains of
bacteria (or even two of the same/similar strain), from two separate foods.
The Russians and Eastern Europeans spend a lot of time preserving foods (for their long cold
winters) and they can become a source for the Clostridium botulinum bacteria to grow in. So
for breakfast the Skripals have some pickles that Yulia brought with her and a few hours
later the botulinum toxin begins to affect them, but only mildly. Their seafood risotto also
happens to contain traces of Clostridium botulinum and that combined with the original is
enough to knock them out 30 minutes or so later.
Botulism can be hard to track down, but when you have the world's leading experts on it just
down the road at Porton Down it should be easy to get a quick positive test and to have all
the information necessary to treat any victims.
But can you imagine what would happen if you tell the world that a Russian spy has been
poisoned with botulinum toxin, just a few miles away from the world's leading reasearch
centre for that toxin. A different explanation is needed and a quick flood of DSMA-Notices
needs to be issued to prevent any unwanted details emerging whilst the new explanation is
being created.
Bailey the other poisoning victim may have had just a mild dose from the seafood risotto.
claiming that Theresa May got European support by claiming they could prove that the
Skripal poison came from Russia (vetoed by Porton Down). The article asks for an independent
investigation. Deutsche Welle is the German equivalent of BBC.
The Skripals were on the 'kill list' for the known reasons regarding the Steele dossier.
Yulia was just collateral damage. Porton Down had the substance and it was applied to the
house door after the Skripals had left to go about what they had planned to do.
Unscripted, the Skripals come down with a food poisoning from eating at the restaurant.
They are unable to return home, where they would have been poisoned by whatever services
involved. But the cop goes there and comes into contact with whatever was applied there.
Noteworthy is of course, that any assassination will not be perpetrated based on a 10%
chance of succeeding. The people with the abilities to take somebody out do just that.
Although it must also be mentioned that assassinations by means of causing cancer in the
victim are very popular in the valuable West.
Posted by: Old Microbiologist | Apr 7, 2018 3:06:13 AM | 85
I think its military use has shifted since WWI. It is used on civilian populations for
ethnic cleansing, on underground makeshift facilities like tunnels and in PR.
There is not one single mention of a poisoned spy Skripal story nowhere near headline or
important news columns to be noticed or seen. Like the story never happened.
I am saying the BBC, The Guardian and CNN just forgot that there was any news concerning
Russia poisoning or even mention of it.
Really?
I'm not so sure. There are increasing demands to have another referendum over the Brexit
"package". Also, one thing the Conservative Brexiters have overlooked is what happens when
the Labour Party forms a government? Inside the EU there are strict limits and controls to
what it could do to return the UK from a neo-liberal economy to either a social democratic or
democratic socialist economy. Once the UK leaves the EU all those limits and controls
disappear, which is probably why Corbyn is ambivalent about Brexit - he knows we need to
remain part of Europe but not part of the neo-liberal EU ruled by a quasi-dictatorship in
Brussels.
BTW, the UK has been the United States' enforcer inside the EU since it joined.
When the UK voted for Brexit, I suspect that deep-state Washington thought that Poland could
take over as enforcer , but the nationalist politicians in Poland are just not up to
the job. So what could deep-state Washington do? Discredit Theresa May as she is probably the
only Conservative politician capable of getting terms for Brexit that the British electorate
will accept? Put in her place a thoroughly damaged Boris Johnson who would screw it up
completely?
b,
your "best explanation ... " label is a little deceptive, as you yourself concede in the last
paragraphs of your piece. Food poisoning explains the recovery of the Skripals, the
conflicting allegations about means and location of the poisoning and the lies and secrecy
about DS Baileys alledged affection by the poison, nothing more.
The simplest explanation why the British government should have taken food poisoning as an
opportunity for a global PsyOp in a manner, that was definitely highly unprofessional and
panic-like, is still the repeated Russian warnings of an imminent large-scale chemical False
Flag attack in Syria, to which an attack on the government district was to follow,
plus numerous reports of the capture of British Special Forces in Ghouta, which
were, with due reservations, relayed by Maxim A. Suchkov. Suchkov is not in a position to
indulge in levity in such a case.
On the other hand, Russia would not waste the opportunities of the evidence on Public
Relation. The Kremlin would refer it to reasonably selected confidential military and civil
contacts within the EU to bolster the rifts within the imperial camp, especially
transatlanticists and their opponents in the European Council. Brexit could have become even
more detrimental for the UK.
Clinical Presentation:
Ingestion of molluscs contaminated with PSP results in the following clinical picture
(Bower et al, 1981, Kao 1993). Five to 30 minutes from consumption, there is slight
perioral tingling progressing to numbness which spreads to face and neck to moderate cases.
In severe cases, these symptoms spread to the extremities with incoordination and
respiratory difficulty. There are medullary disturbances in severe cases evidenced by
difficulty swallowing, sense of throat constriction, speech incoherence or complete loss of
speech, as well as brain stem dysfunction. Within 2-12 hours, in very severe cases, there
is complete paralysis and death from respiratory failure in absence of ventilatory support.
After 12 hours, regardless of severity, victims start to recover gradually and are without
any residual symptoms within a few days (Bower et al, 1981, ILO 1984, Halstead 1988).
This fits the eyewitness reports of the Skripals on the bank. A women who had watched them
said they were behaving erratic before collapsing. She thought they were way out on drugs.
"I suspect that deep-state Washington thought that Poland could take over as enforcer, but
the nationalist politicians in Poland are just not up to the job."
It is debatable if the current Polish government is barking mad or batshit insane, but in
either case, they lack influence on other countries that an "enforcer" needs. In any case,
what would an "enforcer" enforce? On most matters, the French are eager to please and Germans
usually follow the suit, even if Merkel utters something feisty in a biergarten on
occasion.
We still do not know for a fact how the Skripals were poisoned (several avenues of
"investigation" - buckwheat, door handle, gift, something in a suitcase) and how Detective
Sergeant Bailey fits into this picture. If he was in the house (early stories suggested this)
how did he get in and was he there on his own? Was he in the house at all? Where was he?
The ER consultant and his letter. There is no follow-up by media. There is apparently no
official reaction to the letter. This letter is the only half-way external confirmation there
were 3 people with considerable poisoning. Maybe this letter is not a white hat letter?
I think it is best to just take a step back and look at this from some distance. You then
realize there is not a single thing here you can be sure about. There are no facts; whatever
there is is presented by British government agents (that includes Porton Down). The "defense"
cannot get hold of anything to build a meaningful defense on. Embassy is denied access. Close
relatives are denied access.
How does Yulia Skripal know that "nobody here" will give her cousin a visa? Is she
familiar with the intricacies of the Visa process? The whole phone call sounds like the
acoustic equivalent of the device ships in StarTrek have installed - a deflector shield. Calm
down things, make her cousin not apply for a visa. This phone call came (just like that)
after her cousin started to go public in Russia and probably was identified as a potential
disruptor. Yulia Skripal tried to make her not apply for a visa - by assuring her everything
and everyone is OK (including Sergey) and then, when Victoria insisted, tackling the Visa
issue right away - don't apply the message is, no need to come to the UK and see me. It
appears this had to be avoided at all costs.
Followed by an official confirmation Sergey is recovering, too.
Someone decided that they could not keep the Skripals in intensive care forever since
somehow the doubt is more widespread than expected? Now it is about calming things down? All
is well since the Skripals are fine? Damage control mission?
Someone had a look at Yulia's social media account after March 4.
What torpedoes the food-poisoning theory is that the UK response was so quick, coordinated
and word perfect - till Boris overstepped the mark (he is just an attention seeking buffoon).
So whatever transpired they knew it was coming.
What is odd is that the Skripals are still alive. Maybe its the special Russian DNA.
Thankfully, the medics in Salisbury declined to go with the official line, and stated so,
publicly, early on. The Skripals could, plausibly, have been taken to Porton Down for
sSpecialist treatment", like the Guinea Pigs (it seems the pets have been incinerated - ie
destruction of evidence).
Freya Church, from Salisbury, said: "On the bench there was a couple, an older guy and a
younger girl.
She was sort of leant in on him, it looked like she had passed out maybe.
"He was doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky. It looked like they
had been taking something quite strong."
Sergei Skripal was found unconscious on a shopping centre bench in Salisbury, Wiltshire,
along with a woman he is thought to know.
Skripal and a 33-year-old woman are believed to have come into contact with a
poisonous substance at the city's Zizzi restaurant, which has since been closed by
emergency teams.
An interesting hypothesis: May, Johnson and Williamson might be deceived by their own
advisors. In tyhis case this is an operation directed at undermining May's government to the
point of a no-confidence vote in order to stop Brexit and to preserve the UK's position in the
European Union, which is favored by the political and financial elites.
But I doubt the Corbin is the person the British neoliberal want in power.
Notable quotes:
"... And it wasn't until the lead scientists at Porton Downs left May, Johnson and Williamson out to hang on Monday that the full operation became clear. By stating that they could not confirm the origin of the Novichok nerve agent used in the attack on the Skripals the Porton Downs officials destroyed the credibility of The Gypsum Lady's government ..."
"... Therefore, this operation was always about undermining May's government to the point of a no-confidence vote. This would then be the ultimate betrayal of Brexit in order to preserve the U.K.'s position in the European Union, which is favored by the political and old-monied British elite. ..."
"... May and Johnson both get told by trusted advisors that there is incontrovertible proof of Russia's hand in this. They go with this information with confidence to parliament, the U.N., high-level meetings with foreign leaders and the press. They convince their allies to stand strong against the evil Russians who is everyone's bid 'baddie' at this point. ..."
"... Trump has to go along with this nonsense even though he is obviously skeptical otherwise there will be an uproar in the US press about him betraying our most trusted ally for his puppet-master Putin ..."
"... But, if Brexit is betrayed through this hackneyed farce of a spy thriller, it won't sit well with the British people. Scotland's call for a second referendum will continue to grow and the Pound will fall alongside the competitiveness of British labor still trapped within a euro-zone that has done nothing but choke the life out of the economy. ..."
"... Between these things and the toxic levels of political correctness as it pertains to Muslim immigration, the insanity of London liberals and the de facto police state the U.K. has become and you have a recipe for political unrest that will not be pretty. Brexit was meant to be the peaceful revolution that put the nail in the coffin of the march to one world government. It is about to be nullified. When it is the sun will finally set on what's left of the British Empire. ..."
"... That was my gut feeling from the beginning, that it was the MI6 for some internal stuff. I didn't think of Brexit but it makes sense. Either way, Britain has already since decades been geopolitically irrelevant other than as the empire's muscle's sidekick. ..."
"... More like we have privatised so much of our intelligence services, just like the US has got the private sector, working on around 80% of their intelligence. Leaving it to those with minimal knowledge, but, experts in the art of spin, as Elliot Higgins, with his Google Software Certificate, comes to mind. Just one of the experts of the day, with a similar set of skills. ..."
"... Why did British government killed Skirpal's pests? Police search of the Skripal's house was so thorough that in a month they couldn't find his cat and 2 guinea pigs. Now, the police issued the statement full of lies. ..."
"... More then 2/3 of ALL financial transactions are done through the City of London, and the EU has, although there are several contenders, not yet transferred all this to the European Mainland to any major financial center on the Mainland! ...Frankfurt am Main and Paris are the top two contenders. ..."
"... Johnson, as a supervisor for MI6, then is some they want to get rid of? ..."
"... One can look back a few month's before Salisbury and see May out of the blue ratcheting up her Russophobia during speeches on Youtube. Keep in mind that as Home minister from 2010-2016 May must have had direct relations with MI5. ..."
"... Also her carefully scripted language more implying than direct stating offers her a plausible deniability just like Blair exploited. So the fault can be shifted to faulty intelligence or experts. So presenting May as a victim is 'highly likely' too generous. My guess is that she was involved from its inception. ..."
"... May goes to see the EU leaders, next stage signed off, but, we are left in ignorance and low and behold, so many Russian Diplomats are expelled from US and EU nations, just a couple of days after May has been horsetrading? ..."
"... The EU will never be what you Spaniards and we Croats want. We would like something like the US of Europe. All people to be equal. Sweden, Denmark, Germany... want a lot of bantustans in Europe. The name bantustan was used in the RSA during apartheid when they had created a lot of independent states in order to exploit them. My question to you is - if you were a Dane would you like to share "all spoils" with third world countries like Bulgaria, Romania...and tomorrow Bosnia, Macedonia...etc? ..."
"... There is another cover-up taking place in May's government in the midst of the Skripal hysteria, and that is of the decades-old sex rings (organized by Asian Muslims, according to what I have read) that have raped between 1,000-1500 girls in three English towns. It is a sensitive issue, but should rightfully be reported. ..."
"... My only problem with this article is if May's government fails, then there is a serious risk for the globalists that a more ardent Brexiter may end up leading the party! ..."
Putting diplomatic pressure on Russia on behalf of the U.S.'s crazed neoconservative Deep
State just didn't seem like a big enough reward. Neither did cutting Russian businesses out of
European banks to stop contractor and creditor payments associated with the Nordstream 2
pipeline.
Those things felt like nice bonus objectives but not main goals.
And it wasn't until the lead scientists at Porton Downs left May, Johnson and Williamson
out to hang on Monday that the full operation became clear. By stating that they could not
confirm the origin of the Novichok nerve agent used in the attack on the Skripals the Porton
Downs officials destroyed the credibility of The Gypsum Lady's government .
Therefore, this operation was always about undermining May's government to the point of
a no-confidence vote. This would then be the ultimate betrayal of Brexit in order to preserve
the U.K.'s position in the European Union, which is favored by the political and old-monied
British elite.
In short, this was a coup attempt.
And don't think for a second that this is not plausible. Remember it was Margaret Thatcher's
own most trusted people who betrayed her to get the U.K. into the European Union in the first
place. This was why they brought down The Iron Lady.
So, here's the scene:
May and Johnson both get told by trusted advisors that there is incontrovertible proof
of Russia's hand in this. They go with this information with confidence to parliament, the
U.N., high-level meetings with foreign leaders and the press. They convince their allies to
stand strong against the evil Russians who is everyone's bid 'baddie' at this point.
Trump has to go along with this nonsense even though he is obviously skeptical otherwise
there will be an uproar in the US press about him betraying our most trusted ally for his
puppet-master Putin .
To be honest, I don't think these bozos, May and Johnson, were in on the plan. I think they
were being played all along and now will be the patsies.
Just like May was played last year, calling for snap elections. The minute she called them
there were terror attacks all over London, marches against her over public safety. A media
campaign which puffed up Jeremy Corbyn, who they are now destroying for his rightful
trepidation about this fairy tale MI-6 is spinning.
The goal was to weaken May and get Labour back in charge. Corbyn would then be cast aside
and a Tony Blair clone installed as Prime Minister to scuttle Brexit and restore order to the
galaxy, Europe. Unfortunately, the DUP got enough of the vote to re-elect a very weakened May
and things have limped along for nearly a year.
Crisis on Infinite Empires
The problem with this however, is like all plans of those desperate to cling to vestiges of
former glory (and the U.K. is definitely the poster child for that), is the crisis of
confidence it will engender. Make no mistake, Brexit was no mistake. It's what the people of
Britain wanted and they want it more now than in 2016. So, they don't dare call for a new
referendum. But, they are also looking at a third parliamentary vote in as many years.
And that doesn't scream confidence no matter how much markets would prefer the legal status
quo. Opposition to Brexit comes from the entrenched monied power, not from any adherence to
globalist ideology.
But, if Brexit is betrayed through this hackneyed farce of a spy thriller, it won't sit
well with the British people. Scotland's call for a second referendum will continue to grow and
the Pound will fall alongside the competitiveness of British labor still trapped within a
euro-zone that has done nothing but choke the life out of the economy.
The Pound will begin to sink into irrelevancy as this unfolds. It won't happen overnight,
but we will look back on these events and see them as the trigger points for the path of
history.
Between these things and the toxic levels of political correctness as it pertains to
Muslim immigration, the insanity of London liberals and the de facto police state the U.K. has
become and you have a recipe for political unrest that will not be pretty. Brexit was meant to
be the peaceful revolution that put the nail in the coffin of the march to one world
government. It is about to be nullified. When it is the sun will finally set on what's left of
the British Empire.
The problem with this "they made May do it" narrative is that she (and Bojo the
blowhard) were clearly no reluctant stooges. They were relishing their chest thumping,
Russia hating roles, and it is easier to believe they were in fact the architects not the
pawns.
I think Craig Murray understands it best when he said the government had put pressure
on Porton Down scientists to say the agent was made in Russia. Even the Aitkenhead
interview had the fingerprints of government handlers all over it, when, after
"finishing" the interview and taking down the camera, they had to set it up again - it
was in a different position - in order to coerce Aitkenhead to make the absurd claim that
it could only have been made by a state actor.
So it looks like a government orchestrated provocation for political reasons - to puff
up May's "tough" credentials, and get the UK punching above its weight in the
international arena. But all it has really done is strain the already fraying
relationship between the Nato states.
.....it could only have been made by a state actor.....About twenty state actors can
produce it, including Porton Down / the UK.
So it means nothing for people who can think, on the other hand it means a lot for MSM
propaganda and sheepishly population.
George Galloway said it best. Paraphrasing : "England wants you to believe that a
military grade nerve
agent that is classified 10 times more potent than VX, did not kill anyone? They want you
to believe that the nerve agent was on the door handle so when the Shripal's left the
house, the father closed the door and his daughter needed to doubled checked if it was
closed? Really? So, it was so deadly that they managed to get to the car, disappear for a
few hours, then went to a pub followed by a restaurant where, amazingly enough, they felt
well enough to eat a full meal and finally both of them fell at the same time on a park
bench over 4 hours later? Not one investigator or police that went to
the Shripal house, during the investigation got sick?
If you believe that story, you are not a sheep, you are an idiot!"
That was my gut feeling from the beginning, that it was the MI6 for some internal
stuff. I didn't think of Brexit but it makes sense. Either way, Britain has already since
decades been geopolitically irrelevant other than as the empire's muscle's sidekick.
It
never had a vision for Europe (other than to start wars in it since centuries) and never
really wanted to be part of it. What is Britain anyhow except for a very beautiful
country? Isn't that enough? Why do you always have to be important? Look at Portugal,
this often overlooked small country at the edge of Europe where the sun sets in the ocean
as otherwise only in California. We used to be the world's number one empire once, then
number two, and now? It is certainly going to be the place I want to spend my retirement
in. Great weather, rough sea, beautiful beaches, amazing food, and one of the most
friendly people in all of Europe. What's an empire good for?
The problem is that these rich people cannot appreciate anything. Here in Hamburg our
old Hanseatic money is modeled very much after the British way. Golfing, rowing, tennis,
hockey, private boarding schools, the whole shebang. I've been to school with a lot of
them and noticed that they all have this aura of lost sadness that can only be filled by
greed and artificial importance in artificial clubs and such.
A lot of my classmates
ended up managing hedge funds in London, prior to 2008 at least. They still eradiate this
cold, empty sadness, but they meet annually in Bangkok for guess what. I prefer to
appreciate the simple things and instead of clinging to a distant past the British elites
would do well to make room for their common people to do the same, for example by
providing for affordable housing in their cities, especially in London.
Sergei, neither did I and that was the part that was distressing me for the past
couple of weeks. Then it finally hit me while I was on YouTube livestreaming about
this... and I thought... "Yeah, that's the missing piece."
The only part I disagree with is that which the writer states May and Johnson were
actually in on this sell out of Britain. Boris is a buffoon, for working with May, so is
Gove and so are all (who claimed to be BREXITEERS) but as yo whether Johnson is actually
in on it, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's face it though his reputation
is ruined and permanently so as a result of enigmatic blaming the Russians for this gross
miscarriage of justice (guilty until proven innocent).
As for #ShariaAppeaserMay she is
the 'woman' behind keeping the UK in and will be 'the women' who breaks the UK apart. She
is bungling, useless and a traitor to this country and all the foolhardy have stood by
and watche her complete and utter uselessness be the badge Britain wears in future. The
Russians are laughing as #theMaybot destroys her own and UK credibility, she was a liar,
remonaner and appeaser from the beginning.
It won't be long, the country can only be saved by Divine Intervention.
I didn't say they were in on this. Actually I made it a point not to say that. "To be honest, I don't think these bozos, May and Johnson, were in on the plan. I
think they were being played all along and now will be the patsies."
MOSCOW, April 6. /TASS/. The cat and two guinea pigs Sergei Skripal had kept in his
home might have proved an important piece of evidence in the case of the former GRU
colonel's poisoning, because the animals died under very strange circumstances, Russian
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on her Facebook page, adding that did
not happen because they were cremated.
"At first sight this may look a reason for another portion of
key-witnesses-have-been-eliminated jokes," she said. "In reality, though, they were
really 'crucial pieces of evidence,' if it is true a poisonous substance, according to
some versions, might have been used inside Skripal's house."
Strange search
Zakharova was surprised that the pets reportedly died because they had remained inside
the house all alone without being taken care of.
"How is that? The house was searched but the pets remained unnoticed. The pets of a
man who was suspected to have been poisoned with a nerve gas?!" she said.
Also, Zakharova raised doubts why the cat was euthanized at the Porton Down chemical
laboratory.
"Is this Britain's usual way of treating house pets? Is it quite common?" she
asked.
"That is not all," Zakharova went on to say. "According to media rumors, the guinea
pigs and the cat were cremated. In other words, destroyed, although the pets' bodies
might have served a crucial piece of evidence in the poisoning case."
Zakharova said that according to Russian sources, the British Broadcasting Corporation
(the BBC) did know that pets were remaining in Skripal's house, but kept quiet about
that. "We would like to hear explanations," she added.
Advice to May and Boris: When you're is such a hole, keep digging. LOL!
The moral victor is Corbyn and that may translate in dumping the Blairite backstabbers
within Labour and perhaps a real victory at elections. The upcoming local elections next
month may serve as an indication.
Just for the record - Brexit talks are easy - they went from the win-lose battle of a
cash payment a long while ago and have been on win-win negotiations ever since. The only
rule in these negotiations is that everyone must claim victory over everything so the
publicity is very different from the facts.
Sorry Tom, I do not agree. More like we have privatised so much of our intelligence
services, just like the US has got the private sector, working on around 80% of their
intelligence. Leaving it to those with minimal knowledge, but, experts in the art of
spin, as Elliot Higgins, with his Google Software Certificate, comes to mind. Just one of
the experts of the day, with a similar set of skills.
Now why does Elliot Higgins remind me Atlantic Council, NATO and those behind the
Great Israel Project, so come to mind? So where do Boris and May fit in and who are they
loyal to? If you look at the demonization of Corbyn, together with how they are using the
anti-Semitic card, to go with the Zionist led media, hysteria, behind Jeremy.
The Skripals and Salisbury Plain, were meant to complement another false flag that
was due to go down. Only Russia and Syria prevented it from happening, before those
running the other part of the script, received the message.
How would things have gone, if there was a chemical weapons incident, on the scale of
say 9/11, that happened in Syria, with a minor story, set up at the same time, to accuse
Russia of a CW incident in the UK?
Tim Bell
Bell Pottinger
PR Media Management Litvinenko and good friend Boris Berezovsky
Sans Frontieres
Doctors Without Borders
Journlists Without Borders
White Helmets
Atlantic Council
NATO
Trump Dossier
Christopher Steele
Sergei Skripal
Ukraine
Salisbury Plain and the list goes on
How does it all fit in, with other stories that are running?
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London: Evidence Emerges Of Mifsud's Links To UK
Intelligence...
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
Jeish Al-Islam's Chemical Weapons Production Workshops Discovered in Eastern
Ghouta
The Syrian army found a number of workshops and facilities in Eastern Ghouta of Damascus
that had been used by Jeish al-Islam terrorist group to produce chemical weapons and
toxic gases...
https://www.veteranstoday.c...
Despots and
Rogues, Met Its
End in South Africa
The British firm Bell Pottinger, hired by
three brothers now caught up in a nationwide
corruption scandal, helped drive racial
tensions to levels not felt since apartheid...
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
"The Skripals and Salisbury Plain, were meant to complement another false flag that
was due to go down. Only Russia and Syria prevented it from happening, before those
running the other part of the script, received the message."
This part at least sounds like a very good explanation.
AM,
You may be right about the motivations behind this being a bit more murky than I put it
in the article. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong here. It's part of what I do, take
things and spin out plausible scenarios.
The net effect, however, will be as I laid out, the loss of confidence in the U.K.
government, it's further isolation and subservience to both the U.S. and the EU will
hasten its demise now that it's alienated both China and Russia over this idiotic
incident.
Why did British government killed Skirpal's pests?
Police search of the Skripal's house was so thorough that in a month they couldn't find
his cat and 2 guinea pigs.
Now, the police issued the statement full of lies.
I wouldn't worry much about the May government, ...it was doomed to fail much sooner,
then later from the day they assumed office, but what the world, and particularly Europe
should be VERY afraid of: the collapse of GREAT @#$%& BRITAIN!
Why? ...what's that piddy little island off the European Mainland got, that the rest
of Europe don't, ...right?
More then 2/3 of ALL financial transactions are done through the City of London, and
the EU has, although there are several contenders, not yet transferred all this to the
European Mainland to any major financial center on the Mainland! ...Frankfurt am Main and
Paris are the top two contenders.
If Great Britain goes to the dogs, all hell is going to break loose on the
Mainland!
We learn that this hoax is indeed a hoax: Russian TV Releases Phone Call Of 'Poisoned' Yulia Skripal Saying Her And Her Father
Are 'Fine'
"Everything's ok. He's resting now, having a sleep. Everyone's health is fine, there's
nothing that can't be put right. I'll be discharged soon. Everything is ok."
it is always Hard to bring the truth to the People when you have the Paedophile
Protection Network the BBC, protecting all the Criminal low lifes and sowing the seeds of
discontent, because people tend to believe what they hear First before the begin to
analyse it, But I beleive that we have a Criminal Government whom have lied and lied and
lied, first lie the Grenfell tower the death figures are a lie i would have said it was
between 300 and 500 and possibly Higher, she is Lying about Brexit and she does have the
Choice to leave it Without Paying a penny for a Union that was created and Controlled by
the USA, And now we have the poisoning of Skripal and His Daughter, because the poison
clearly came from Porton Down, because the have the Antidote and have always had it as
they have Always had the Poison and it was clearly implemented by MI6, as was the
Poison's that Porton Down were Spraying on their own people 40 and 50 Years Ago when the
had little van's Running About The Countryside spraying out toxic poisons that was the
Precurser to chemtrail's, think of all the worst things that Porton Down can do, and all
your Gueses could be Right, To Put It In Spades Porton Down Stinks to High Heaven And
Should Have Been Shut Down 50 years Ago, they have murdered hundreds of People in the
Name Of National Security, the list of lies goes On and On and On.
One can look back a few month's before Salisbury and see May out of the blue
ratcheting up her Russophobia during speeches on Youtube. Keep in mind that as Home
minister from 2010-2016 May must have had direct relations with MI5.
Also her carefully
scripted language more implying than direct stating offers her a plausible deniability
just like Blair exploited. So the fault can be shifted to faulty intelligence or experts.
So presenting May as a victim is 'highly likely' too generous. My guess is that she was
involved from its inception.
The rest of BREXIT does not matter, for those concerned. However, the BREXIT talks
were not going that well. Remember, the EU and all their demands, when we just had to sit
tight, keep the cheque book closed, retain our fishing rights, post exit, walk away from
the legal loopholes, concerned with the EU and the EU gets nought, as we toddle off, in
March 2019. In the meantime, May goes to see the EU leaders, next stage signed off, but,
we are left in ignorance and low and behold, so many Russian Diplomats are expelled from
US and EU nations, just a couple of days after May has been horsetrading?
We will see what comes next. I think that the €urozone will not only survive but
enlarge to Sweden and Denmark. It is true that the €urozone only can continue as a
European Federation, but a European Federation is inevitable if we want Europe to have a
say in global affairs, with a GDP similar to China in size and a much higher income per
head.
The EU will never be what you Spaniards and we Croats want.
We would like something like the US of Europe.
All people to be equal.
Sweden, Denmark, Germany... want a lot of bantustans in Europe.
The name bantustan was used in the RSA during apartheid when they had created a lot of
independent states in order to exploit them.
My question to you is - if you were a Dane would you like to share "all spoils" with
third world countries like Bulgaria, Romania...and tomorrow Bosnia, Macedonia...etc?
Even today, as it is, by law you as EU citizen are not allowed to stay more than three
months - let's say in Italy - if you don't comply some requirements, like a proof that
you work, that you seek a job, that you study... Try to open a bank account in Italy
without those requirements.
No chance.
EU - to my opinion is a big delusion.
Artisans cannot benefit because of language barriers, poor organization to find a
job...Highly skilled people are not needed...
Just imagine this scenario...
The US says to Spain or to Croatia - Whoever wants from now on can go to the US...but
will not get the American citizenship. The person is only eligible to seek work...once
you get the job you can stay/work forever.
How many people would go?
How many skills are marketable?
No single layer, social worker, teacher, administrator, policeman, government employee,
psycholog, politician...would go.
Etc....
There is another cover-up taking place in May's government in the midst of the Skripal
hysteria, and that is of the decades-old sex rings (organized by Asian Muslims, according
to what I have read) that have raped between 1,000-1500 girls in three English towns. It
is a sensitive issue, but should rightfully be reported. The U.K. press is not reporting
much on it, and the American MSM has been silent. Think about it: the uproar created
about the fates of two people (Skripal and his daughter), but the suffering of
potentially 1500 girls suppressed. This is a disgrace. But the British people know and
are demanding a fuller investigation into these crimes.
My only problem with this article is if May's government fails, then there is a
serious risk for the globalists that a more ardent Brexiter may end up leading the
party!
After the Skripal affair, is any more proof required that nothingin neoliberal MSM can be taken at face value? Looks like their
motto is "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."
Notable quotes:
"... So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia." ..."
"... The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks. ..."
"... No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted and monitored. ..."
On Tuesday, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK's chemical weapons facility, the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory, told Sky News that scientists had "not verified the precise source" of the material used in the attack in Salisbury on
March 4. Aitkenhead's statement came on the eve of the convening at Moscow's request of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague, which would have exposed the UK government's case. But this resort to damage control only underscores
the monstrous hoax perpetrated by the British and American governments and their European allies.
May told parliament on March 12 that Porton Down was "absolutely categorical" that the "nerve agent" used on the Skripals had
come from Russia. "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down," she said,
"the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible" for an "attempted murder" on British soil.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle on March 20 that "the people from Porton Down"
were "absolutely categorical" that the source of the nerve agent used against the Skripals was Russia. "I asked the guy myself,"
he said, "and he said 'there's no doubt.'"
So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out
on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia."
... ... ...
The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted
Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into
the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that
Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks.
No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past
month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times
raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the
lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political
purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted
and monitored.
The British Imperial Lords are in a state of shock. Their frantic effort to save the Empire
came crashing down Tuesday when the scientists at Porton Down refused to lie for the Empire --
refused to say that the nerve agent in the Skripal case came from Russia. Recall that it was
David Kelly, the head of the Defence Microbiology Division at Porton Down and a member of the
inspection team in Iraq, who blew the whistle on Tony Blair's "sexed up" dossier claiming that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As a scientist he refused to lie. Kelly was
"suicided" as a result, and the illegal and genocidal war went on.
This time, neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama are around to provide cover for the
Empire's lies. President Trump, to the dismay of the British and American oligarchs and press
whores, has refused to say (or tweet) a word about the Russian role in the Skripal case. He
spoke to Putin after the incident without mentioning it, and, just yesterday, told the press
yet again that "getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing."
The absurd speed at which the British Government reacted to the incident probably means that the event was coordinated with
the USA. the fact that The British Government's ignoring of legal frameworks and protocols points to existence of a plan how to fuel
this incident to the British equivalent of Russiagate, facts be damned.
That returns us to the classic question Cue bono? When British government supported by the USA demanded that the Western nations
join in blaming Russia, with no evidence whatsoever only half the EU nations went along, and, while Trump allowed his Administration
to expel Russian diplomats, he himself laid no blame on the Russians, and announced that Moscow could replace their diplomats.
The UK's chemical weapons experts issues a statement which shown that Prime Minister May clearly jumped the gun. The question
is Why? She probably understood the flimsiness of the evidence better then nobody. So why "end justifies the means" act
on her part?
That suggest that we are witnessing just initial steps of multi-step gambit and there can be more victims is this story.
Please remember that Dr. David Kelly was "suicided" after testifying against Blair's "sexed up dossier" that lead to the Iraq War.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only has the British Government acted with lightning speed, it has also ridden roughshod over a number of international legal agreements and protocols. ..."
"... according to the British Government's own timeline , it wasn't until March 14th – the day that Mrs May formally announced the culpability of the Russian State to Parliament – that she actually wrote to the OPCW to involve them in the case. This is, I understand, contrary to the obligations Britain has as a member of the OPCW, and signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). ..."
"... In addition, the British Government has refused to provide evidence to the Russian Government. Again, my understanding is that this is contrary to the protocols set out in the CWC ..."
"... Why, if it was so sure of its claims, did the British Government feel the need to ignore international agreements to which it is a signatory, and instead act in this opaque and frankly suspicious manner? ..."
"... As mentioned above, the Chief Executive of Porton Down, Gary Aitkenhead has confirmed that the laboratory was unable to identify the origin of the substance used to poison the Skripals. ..."
"... In other words, according to the door theory, the two of them were poisoned by a military grade nerve agent, which then took over three hours to have any effect. Odd, wouldn't you say? ..."
"... Therefore, if they were poisoned at the front door, this would mean that not only did the two of them feel little or no effects for the three hours or so that followed, but it would also mean that a large 66-year-old man and an averagely built 33-year-old woman, of different height, weight and metabolism, somehow succumbed to the effects of poisoning at exactly the same time, some three hours or so later. Again, is that not very odd? ..."
"... Perhaps it is possible to survive a miniscule dose of such a nerve agent. The problem with this is that according to many earlier claims, there were significant traces of the substance in various parts of the City of Salisbury, which indicates that it cannot have been a very miniscule amount that they came into contact with at the door. Which means that we are being asked to believe that they were poisoned by "more than a miniscule amount" of this deadly poison, but both somehow survived, despite neither receiving an antidote (a fact now confirmed by Gary Aitkenhead). Does that not seem improbable? ..."
"... Another possibility – that the British Government or intelligence services were behind the incident – has been given great credibility by the British Government itself, in its absurdly quick reaction to the incident and its blatant ignoring of legal protocols. ..."
"... If British intelligence had planned a hit job on Mr Skripal using a military-grade nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia", in order to then pin the blame on the Russian Government, I doubt very much that Mr Skripal and his daughter would still be alive, or that the explanation for where the poison was administered would be changing on a daily basis, or that the British Government's evidence to other countries would have been as risible as it was (unless of course our intelligence agencies are as incompetent as such a scenario would require them to be, that is). ..."
I have now asked a total of 50 questions around the Skripal case, which you can find
here
and
here . Having gone back through these questions, as far as I can see only three have been answered by the release of public information
or events that have transpired. These are:
Are they (Sergei and Yulia Skripal) still alive?
If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?
Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals
and D.S. Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?
On the first two points we are now told that Yulia Skripal's condition has significantly improved to the point where she is said
to be recovering well and talking. However, although this provides something of an answer to these questions, it also raises a number
of others. Is she finally being allowed consular access? Is she being allowed to speak to her fiancé, her grandmother, or her cousin
by telephone? Most importantly, how does her recovery comport with the claim that she was poisoned with a "military-grade nerve agent"
with a toxicity around 5-8 times that of VX nerve agent?
It is important that reasonable questions continue to be raised, as they not only help clarify the actual issues, but the answers
-- or lack thereof -- are also a good barometer as to how the official narrative stacks up. As a keen observer of the case -- especially
since it took place just a few hundred yards from my home in Salisbury -- I have to say that the official narrative of the British
Government has not stood up to even the most cursory scrutiny from the outset. In fact, there are three crucial issues that serve
to raise suspicions about it, and to my mind these issues are the most important aspects of the case so far:
The absurd speed at which the British Government reacted to the incident
The British Government's ignoring of legal frameworks and protocols
The large number of discrepancies between events and the official narrative
Let's just look at these in turn.
1. The absurd speed at which the British Government reacted to the incident
I remain astonished at the manner and the speed with which the British Government reacted to this incident. There was the speed
with which the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, first pointed the finger of culpability, less than 48 hours after the incident,
and before any investigation or analysis of the substance had taken place. There was the speed with which Porton Down was apparently
able to analyse and identify the substance, even though it is set to take the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) at least three weeks to carry out a similar identification. There was the speed with which the British Government officially
accused the Russian Government of being behind the incident, and the 36-hour ultimatum given to it to prove its innocence without
being given any of the evidence that apparently showed its culpability. There was the speed with which the British Government, armed
with evidence that looked like it was put together by a
rather dull 14-year-old on work experience , managed
to convince a number of other countries to expel diplomats, including 60 from the United States.
Why, if it was so sure of its claims, did the British Government feel the need to act so hastily and recklessly, rather than await
the results of the investigation?
2. The British Government's ignoring of legal frameworks and protocols
Not only has the British Government acted with lightning speed, it has also ridden roughshod over a number of international
legal agreements and protocols.
Firstly, there is the involvement of the OPCW. What ought to have happened is the British Government should have invited the OPCW
in as part of the investigation immediately upon suspicion of the use of a nerve agent. However,
according to the British Government's own timeline
, it wasn't until March 14th – the day that Mrs May formally announced the culpability of the Russian State to Parliament – that
she actually wrote to the OPCW to involve them in the case. This is, I understand, contrary to the obligations Britain has as a member
of the OPCW, and signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
In addition, the British Government has refused to provide evidence to the Russian Government. Again, my understanding is
that this is contrary to the protocols set out in the CWC.
The British Government has also refused to grant the Russian Embassy in London consular access to two Russian nationals, Sergei
and Yulia Skripal, which it is legally obliged to do under Articles 36 and 37 of the 1963 Vienna Convention and Article 35 (1) of
the 1965 Consular Convention.
Why, if it was so sure of its claims, did the British Government feel the need to ignore international agreements to which
it is a signatory, and instead act in this opaque and frankly suspicious manner?
3. The number of oddities and discrepancies in the official narrative
The speed of apportioning blame and the ignoring of international legal agreements might not have looked nearly as suspicious
had the narrative presented by the British Government and the facts on the ground been in harmony with one another. But they have
not been. Instead, many of the actual events that have transpired over the weeks since the incident was first reported simply do
not fit the overarching explanation given. Below are five of the most important:
1. As mentioned above, the Chief Executive of Porton Down, Gary Aitkenhead has confirmed that the laboratory was unable to
identify the origin of the substance used to poison the Skripals. This is in direct contradiction to the claims made by the
Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, who said the following on the
Andrew Marr Show on 18th March :
Obviously to the best of our knowledge this is a Russian-made nerve agent that falls within the category Novichok made only by
Russia, and just to get back to the point about the international reaction which is so fascinating
If it's made only by Russia, as Mr Johnson claimed, then it must have originated in Russia. Right? Yet Mr Aitkenhead says they were
unable to identify where it was made.
Then in an interview with
Deutsche Welle two days after his above comments, Mr Johnson was categorical about the source of the nerve agent as being Russian.
Here's the exchange:
Interviewer: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly?
Does Britain possess samples of it?
Johnson: "Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory "
Interviewer: "So they have the samples
Johnson: "They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, 'Are you sure?' And he said there's
no doubt."
Who "the guy" is, perhaps we'll never know. The cleaner perhaps? I suppose a politician of Mr Johnson's calibre will happily try
to weasel his way out of the implications of what he said. But to us lesser mortals, it does rather look like he was deliberately
misleading, doesn't it
2. Much of the investigation initially concentrated on where the Skripals were poisoned. Amongst the suggestions made were the
bench on which they collapsed, the Zizzi restaurant where they had eaten, Ms Skripal's luggage or Mr Skripal's car. Then, some 24
days after the incident, it was announced that a high concentration of the "military-grade nerve agent" had been found on the front
door, and that this was the likely place of poisoning. Yet it is known that after leaving the house, Mr Skripal and his daughter
drove into the City Centre, went to the Mill pub, and then to the restaurant where they ate a meal together. In other words,
according to the door theory, the two of them were poisoned by a military grade nerve agent, which then took over three hours to
have any effect. Odd, wouldn't you say?
3. Furthermore, it has been stated that the two of them became ill at the same time on the bench in the Maltings. Therefore,
if they were poisoned at the front door, this would mean that not only did the two of them feel little or no effects for the three
hours or so that followed, but it would also mean that a large 66-year-old man and an averagely built 33-year-old woman, of different
height, weight and metabolism, somehow succumbed to the effects of poisoning at exactly the same time, some three hours or so later.
Again, is that not very odd?
4. The claim that they were poisoned by a military grade nerve agent, of a type said to be 5-8 times the toxicity of VX nerve
agent, is itself surely open to question. Both Mr Skripal and his daughter not only survived, but Yulia Skripal is now said to be
sitting up and talking just weeks later. Perhaps it is possible to survive a miniscule dose of such a nerve agent. The problem
with this is that according to many earlier claims, there were significant traces of the substance in various parts of the City of
Salisbury, which indicates that it cannot have been a very miniscule amount that they came into contact with at the door. Which means
that we are being asked to believe that they were poisoned by "more than a miniscule amount" of this deadly poison, but both somehow
survived, despite neither receiving an antidote (a fact now confirmed by Gary Aitkenhead). Does that not seem improbable?
5. The official explanation – that this was planned and authorised at the highest level within the Russian Government – would
lead one to believe that the action was carried out by top level agents of the FSB. Yet the mode of attack – nerve agent apparently
smeared or sprayed on the door – has to be one of the least effective methods that could be used to assassinate anyone. For a start,
it rains a lot in Salisbury, and it did indeed rain on the day of the poisoning. If the substance was left at the front door (assuming
it was the outside), the attacker(s) could have had no guarantee that it would not be washed off before Mr Skripal touched it. Nor
could they have had any guarantee that he, as opposed to his daughter or perhaps a delivery person etc, would come into contact with
it. And of course there is the fact that Mr Skripal is still alive. Does any of this seem consistent with the narrative of a professional,
Kremlin-authorised hit-job.
Conclusion
Where does this leave us? The official narrative would have us believe that the Russian Government authorised the killing of a
has-been (former?) MI6 spy, who it had freed in 2010 and who presumably posed no threat to it, just a week before the Russian election
and weeks before the World Cup, using a nerve agent with an exclusively Russian signature, in a way (on the door) that could not
guarantee the intended target would touch it. This would be difficult enough to swallow by itself, but the British Government's rush
to judgement, disregard for law, and the many discrepancies in the actual events themselves make this scenario absurdly implausible.
Another possibility – that the British Government or intelligence services were behind the incident – has been given great
credibility by the British Government itself, in its absurdly quick reaction to the incident and its blatant ignoring of legal protocols.
These actions were bound to fuel suspicions about the possibility of its own involvement, and I have to say that such suspicions
are absolutely legitimate precisely because of the way it has behaved. However, it must be said that the oddities and discrepancies
in the case don't lend themselves very well to the idea of a carefully planned false flag. If British intelligence had planned
a hit job on Mr Skripal using a military-grade nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia", in order to then pin the blame on the
Russian Government, I doubt very much that Mr Skripal and his daughter would still be alive, or that the explanation for where the
poison was administered would be changing on a daily basis, or that the British Government's evidence to other countries would have
been as risible as it was (unless of course our
intelligence agencies are as incompetent as such a scenario would require them to be, that is).
My hunch -- and it is just that -- is that Mr Skripal himself was perhaps still working for British intelligence, and may have
been in possession of a nerve agent. Somehow, this involvement went wrong, and he ended up accidently poisoning himself and his daughter
on the bench in The Maltings. The Government then scrambled to concoct a story in order to cover up the real story of a Russian working
for MI6 and handling nerve agents, and so quickly decided to point the finger at that most convenient scapegoat, the Russian Government.
The reason that I'm attracted to this possibility is that it explains all three aspects I have described above, and which I think
are the most important aspects of the case. The rush to judgement -- which looked like panic-mode to me -- could have been an attempt
to divert attention away from the investigation looking at the possibility of Mr Skripal having military grade nerve agent in his
possession. The ignoring of international legal protocols, at least for a time, could have been done to ensure that the case was
not probed by any outside body, which may well have exposed discrepancies. And it could also explain many of the oddities mentioned
above, such as traces of nerve agent apparently being found in various places in Salisbury, since these could have come about because
Mr Skripal was in possession of some sort of nerve agent when he left his house that day.
As I say, this is just a hunch and purely speculative. I am probably wrong. But unless the British Government is able to produce
far better evidence than it has so far produced, to back up the claims it has made, I shall consider it a more credible possibility
than the one they have sold to the British public.
Paul Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest , interviewed
retired Russian general Evgeny Buzhinsky. Buzhinsky retired from the Russian Armed Forces in
2009 as a lieutenant general.
Paul Saunders: You said recently that the confrontation between the United Kingdom and
Russia over the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury could lead to "the
last war in the history of mankind." What did you mean by that?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: I'm sorry, but the BBC correspondent understood me incorrectly. It is not
between Russia and the UK: it is between Russia and the so-called collective West, led by the
United States by the way. This incident was a crime. In investigating this sort of crime, any
investigator must ask some questions: who stands to benefit? What's the motive? For President
Putin, believe me, he is the last man on Earth to try to do such a terrible thing on the eve of
the Russian presidential elections and the eve of the soccer championship in Moscow. This is a
blatant provocation, but what is the aim of this provocation? I don't know if you've heard the
"breaking news" that the British military laboratory said that there are no clues that indicate
that this poison is of Russian production, which is not surprising to me. So no proof, no
evidence, yet the British government said that "we collected information" -- what information?
-- "and on the basis of that information we are sure this crime was committed by Russians."
The question always asked these days if this is a new Cold War or a second Cold War. I
always state that its worse! In the time of the Cold War, everything was clear: an ideological
confrontation, but there were definite truths, definite red lines, no threats, no sanctions. No
cases such as recently, with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has called to press Russia, to isolate
Russia, to economically corner Russia. In my view, it is a very dangerous game to try to corner
and isolate Russia.
Paul Saunders: In your statement though, you seem to suggest that you see a possibility of a
real military conflict between Russia and the West. How do you think something like that could
come about?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: The first place where such a conflict could come about is in Syria.
Recently, some days ago, when the Russians spoke to Dunford [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford] after the Americans threatened to strike the center of Damascus, and
Russia made a public statement that if the United States strikes the center of Damascus, where
Russian servicemen are located, where the headquarters where Russian police and advisors are,
then Russia will strike back against the cruise missiles and the carriers of the cruise
missiles. In my view, this is very dangerous since U.S. cruise missiles are launched from
warships.
Paul Saunders: So you view that statement by Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the Russian
General Staff, as a very serious threat?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Yes, it's serious. And I don't think he was joking or just making a
statement to surprise some Americans. No, I am absolutely sure he was serious.
While we're on Syria, there is the subject of chemical weapons. I do appreciate that our
gathered intelligence indicates and can warn the world that terrorists, not the Syrian
government, are the ones deploying chemical weapons in certain locations in provocative
attacks. This results in TV crews being in the right place at the right times, preventing such
provocations. But I think that with such confrontational circumstances that the United States
could decide to strike Damascus.
Paul Saunders: And in that situation, the Russian military would follow through on General
Gerasimov's statement? Many people in the United States would say to themselves that Russia has
a really powerful military force, but President Putin is ultimately a very pragmatic person who
knows that Russia's economy is less than 5 percent of the combined U.S. and European economies
and he would never risk a war like that.
Evgeny Buzhinsky: In the case of war, the economy doesn't matter. 5 percent, 2 percent, 3
percent, it doesn't matter. Because if it ends in war, it will be a very very short war. Do you
think that Russia will go to war with United States for months or years? Of course not.
Paul Saunders: Are you suggesting it would become a nuclear war or it would end very quickly
because of the nature of modern warfare and the conventional weapons at the disposal of the
United States and Russia?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: It is very difficult to predict, but I am sure that any military
confrontation will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia.
I don't believe that a nuclear confrontation can be controlled; this is an illusion on the part
of the United States.
Paul Saunders: Do you see any dangers elsewhere apart from Syria?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Possibly Ukraine, if the United States interferes. Ukraine started this,
Russia answered. But I don't think that's very likely.
Paul Saunders: Turning back to the dispute surrounding Mr. Skripal, the United Kingdom
called for solidarity among its allies. Most of the NATO countries also expelled Russian
diplomats. The United States certainly expelled a very considerable number and also closed the
consulate in Seattle. What impact do you think that had inside Russia? What message did the
Russian government and the Russian people take from that strong, coordinated response? Evgeny
Buzhinsky: First of all, I repeat: what happened with Mr. Skripal was a planned provocation. I
don't know if the UK was alone in planning this, but it is a clear-cut provocation attempting
to demonize and isolate Russia. To find a pretext for expelling Russian diplomats. This is why
I am unsure where this confrontational path can lead. What would be next? For example, now the
United States is thinking about their response; they will expel another round of Russian
diplomats. Russia would expel another fifty. Then the United States would expel another fifty.
After that, then what? A freezing of diplomatic relations?
Paul Saunders: Turning back, you mentioned the idea that this all started with a British
provocation, and it certainly seems to be a widespread view in Russia that this was some kind
of provocation, what do you think would be the motive of the British government to do something
like that?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, no offense meant, but I believe that move by Theresa May was
coordinated with Washington. A lot of Russian experts and observers think so. What was the
motive? I don't know, maybe it was an attempt to divert attention from the internal problems
that Theresa May is facing. For example, what was the first item on the agenda during the last
EU summit? Brexit terms, including conditions that aren't favorable for Britain. And after this
provocation? Russia, with discussions about European solidarity against it instead of talking
about Brexit. Maybe that was the real motive.
Paul Saunders: As you can imagine, very few people in the United States or Britain find it
plausible that the British government would do something like that. Do you think there is any
evidence that would suggest something like that may have happened, beyond your view that there
was not really a motive for Russia to do something like that and there is a motive for the
UK?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: I must tell you frankly: I know some people from our intelligence
services, and they're very concerned. Because Mr. Skripal was exchanged via the illegal program
spy swap, there is a worry that this could endanger or ruin the entire mechanism of exchange.
What is the use of this mechanism if people will be killed afterwards? On the Russian side,
there is no motive whatsoever. On the British side, we can only guess.
SPORTING DANGERS. Ever notice the coincidences? Georgia's invasion timing ? Just when the
lies about Sochi are revealed it's time to move the narrative to Ukraine? Ban Russia from the
Olympics but clear it after. The soccer World Cup will be held in Russia in a
couple of months and it will be held in a dozen Russian cities; the world will see that they're
not miserable s -- holes full of wretched people suffering under Putin's boot. What to do? This
is too big a deal for the governments of soccer-mad countries to dare to boycott. Nerve agent
attack? When that story bursts, then what? It seems that sports are the greatest threat to
world peace.
WADA YA KNOW? Norwegian asthmaticswin ! What a good thing
only Russians dope, isn't it?
WESTERN VALUES ™ . Remember due process? Presumption of innocence? International
agreements? Vienna Convention? Rule of law? Beijing remembers: see below.
GERMANY. Expel 4 diplomats to show "solidarity", approve
Nord Stream . Does that make sense?
UKRAINE. An American survey shows that the mood in Ukraine is bad and expecting worse
. Well, that's one post-Maidan Ukraine expectation that will be fulfilled. Nadia Savchenko, a former Ukrainian
hero, has been arrested inUkraine on
terrorism charges. She dares to suggest that the massacre was a false flag . (Read Ivan
Katchanovski's paper : "This academic
investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally
planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It
found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations,
specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland.
Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or
areas". Here are
confessions by some of the snipers that your local news outlet has been too busy to tell
you about.)
When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more
reprehensible than the original deeds.
The British government is trying to cover-up the lies it made with its false allegations
against Russia. The cover-up necessitates new lies some of which we expose below.
Yesterday the head of the British chemical weapon laboratory in Porton Down stated that the
laboratory can not establish that the poison used in the alleged 'Novichok' attack in Salisbury
was produced by Russia. This was a severe blow to the British government allegations of Russian
involvement in the poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal.
Now the British government tries to hide that it said that the poison used in the Salisbury
was 'produced in Russia' and that Porton down had proved that to be the case. The government
aligned media
are helping to stuff the government lies down the memory hole.
We all need to make sure that the new lies get exposed and that the attempts to change the
record fail.
Yesterday the British Foreign Office deleted this from its Twitter account:
The March 22 tweet was part of a now interruptedthread which
summarized a briefing on the UK government's response to the Salisbury incident given by the
British Ambassador to Russia, Dr Laurie Bristow, to the international diplomatic community in
Moscow.
After the silent scrubbing of the record was publiclyquestioned the Foreign
Office
admitted that it deleted the tweet:
After it emerged on Wednesday that the tweet had been deleted, the Foreign Office said the
post was removed because it "did not accurately report" the words of Laurie Bristow, the UK's
ambassador to Russia, which the tweet was supposed to be quoting.
Hmm - fool me once ...
All
the tweets in the thread used quotation marks, but none was a literal reproduction of the
ambassador's briefing. Only one of the tweets was deleted. A look at the transcript and video
of the briefing shows that all the tweets , including the deleted one, "accurately reported"
the speech. The cover-up of the false statement the ambassador made thus includes at least one
new lie.
The original tweet said "Analysis by world-leading experts at the Defense Science and
Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade Novichok nerve
agent produced in Russia . .."
The transcript of the briefing in Moscow - "exactly as it was delivered" -
is (still) available at the Foreign Office website.
The ambassador, reading from a prepared script, recapitulates the event and, according to
the posted transcript, then says:
Four days later the analysts at Porton Down, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in
the UK, established and made clear that this was a military-grade chemical weapon. One of the
Novichok series; a nerve agent as I said produced in Russia . Porton Down is an Organisation
for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons accredited and designated laboratory.
..
First, there is no doubt that the weapon used in the attack was the military-grade nerve
agent from the Novichok series. This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. An
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to
independently confirm this analysis.
There is also no doubt that Novichok was produced in Russia by the Russian state.
The last line in the -"exactly as it was delivered" - transcript is false. Here is my
transcription from a short Foreign Office video of the briefing (
saved
copy ) which includes the uncut passage of the last two paragraphs quoted above:
... there is no doubt that the weapon used in the attack was the military-grade nerve agent
from the Novichok series. This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. On
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to
independently confirm this analysis.
There is also no doubt that the Novichok was produced in Russia by the Russian state.
The written "exactly as it was delivered" transcript of the briefing says "... that Novichok
was produced ...". At 0:20 in the video I clearly hear the ambassador saying "... that the
Novichok was produced ...". A tiny but very important difference.
The person who put the official captions on the official Foreign Office video agrees with
what I hear and transcribed.
The ambassador referred to " the Novichok", the Novichok he specifically mentioned earlier
in the speech. The Novichok that he said had been detected by Porton Down. The transcript on
the Foreign Office website leaves out the definite article "the". It makes it look as if the
ambassador referred to some unspecified batch of the substance.
The deleted tweet was a faithful rendition of what the ambassador said, it "accurately
reported" it. The transcript the Foreign office posted on its website is false. The ambassador
clearly accused Russia of having produced the very batch that Porton Down analyzed.
Three days earlier Bristow's boss, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, made the same false claim (vid at 5:32) in an
interview with DW .
Porton Down has now said that it made no such claim.
The ambassador's claim was false. The Foreign Office attempt to cover this up by deleting its
tweet and by posting a not-so-exact transcript only amplifies the falsehood of the original
claims.
The briefing continued to emphasize the "produced in Russia" meme. The phrase occurs four
times.
...
Russia's claims that Novichok could have been produced elsewhere have no credibility. We have
no information to indicate that this agent could have been produced anywhere else except in
Russia. So we have no doubt that the nerve agent was produced in Russia .
...
So the fact that the Novichok was produced in Russia , the fact that Russia has a history of
state-sponsored assassinations, and the fact that Russia has responded with the usual
playbook of disinformation and denial left us with no choice but to conclude that this
amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom.
The Foreign Office may want to claim that all the above uses of "produced in Russia" were
only references to decades old research and development in the Soviet Union, not to the
"Skripal" case. The highlighted details shows that this is not the case. Any listener to the
briefing surely got the impression that the UK ambassador was talking about the specific batch
analysed by Porton Down.
It highlighted paragraph of Ambassador Bristow's briefing includes several other lies.
'Novichok' agents can and have been produced in other countries than Russia.
In 2016 five nerve agents of the 'Novichok' series were synthesized by Iranian scientists in
cooperation with the OPCW. Details of their production process
were published . In 1998 the US Army's Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center produced
and catalogued 'Novichok' agents. It added the data for the substances to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Mass Spectral Library. The data was later removed and
U.S. diplomats
were ordered to suppress all international discussion about 'Novichok' agents.
The U.S. military chemical weapon laboratories work in close cooperation with Porton Down.
Porton Down
continues to receive tens of millions of U.S. military research money for its chemical
weapon experiments including tests on animals. The UK government surely knew that 'Novichok'
agents can and have been produced by other actors than Russia.
British and U.S. media aligned with the ongoing anti-Russia campaign now downplay the
earlier claims of the British government.
BBC Radio 4 news at 6:31am today made this comical effort :
"... Russia requested the meeting to address the UK government's suggestion that it was
behind the poisoning ..."
The British government did not make a mere "suggestion". Its ambassador and other officials
stated outright that Russia was the culprit:
"... the fact that the Novichok was produced in Russia .. left us with no choice but to
conclude... "
The New York Times today also uses
the "suggestion" wording (one wonders who 'suggested' that):
The British authorities have blamed Russia for the March 4 poisoning, with Foreign Minister
Boris Johnson suggesting it was " overwhelmingly
likely " that President Vladimir V. Putin had ordered the attack.
On March 16, when the NYT first wrote about Johnson's claims against Russia, it
surely did
not convey that they were only 'suggestive':
Mr. Johnson's remarks were a significant escalation in the dispute between London and Moscow,
directly linking the Russian leader to the poisoning of Sergei V. Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, in the English city of Salisbury.
The British Prime Minster herself
went way further than just 'suggesting' that Russia was guilty:
[T]he Government have concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the
act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
Based on that 'conclusion' the British government threw out 23 Russian diplomats from their
embassy in London. There was nothing 'suggestive' with that.
Off-Guardian
points out that another tactic to divert from the earlier false claims is to now declare
Russia guilty of not cooperating with the investigation:
The UK's flagrant hysteria of the last weeks, the war cries and spittle-flecked abuse is all
being airbrushed away and being replaced with the idea the UK simply requested Russian
co-operation and Russia refused – preferring to make nasty insinuations instead.
To claim that Russia did not cooperate is another lie told to cover up for the now debunked
ones. The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Britain and Russia have signed, dictates the
procedures that must be taken when chemical weapon allegations are made. They foresee the
involvement of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government that rejected the involvement of the OPCW in the
investigation. It only agreed to do so after Russia insisted on it
:
[Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov] added that a case of alleged use of chemical weapons should
be handled through the proper channel, being the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) – of which both Russia and Britain are members.
"As soon as the rumors came up that the poisoning of Skripal involved a Russia-produced
agent, which almost the entire English leadership has been fanning up, we sent an official
request for access to this compound so that our experts could test it in accordance with the
Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]," Lavrov said. So far the request has been ignored by the
British side, he added.
The request from the British government to the OPCW
was sent on March 14 , ten days after the incident happened, two days after the Prime
Minister made her "highly likely" claims against Russia and one day after Lavrov publicly
insisted on OPCW involvement.
It is obviously the British government which at first rejected OPCW involvement and not the
Kremlin.
The OPCW is by
statute a technical agency, not a court. It will release a technical assessment of the involved
agent and not a judgment on responsibility or guilt.
The attempted cover-up by the Foreign Office of the lies the British government spread about
the case has already failed. To play down the original strong claims against Russia as mere
'suggestions' is comical. Allegations that Russia was or is holding up a serious international
investigation are also false. It was Britain which at first rejected the CWC and OPCW
involvement.
The fact that the British government even makes these attempts must be seen as
acknowledgement that it has no case and lied in it its official statements to the global
public. It now covers its trail with more lies.
What else is the British government lying about?
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the Skripal case:
Posted by b on April 4, 2018 at 04:18 PM |
PermalinkDaniel , Apr 4, 2018 5:03:11 PM |
8
I posted the following on a earlier b blog, but since this "news" story continues, it seems
appropriate to repeat.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country.
~ Edward Bernays, "Propaganda," 1928
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
~ Karl Rove
And yet, here we are, almost a century after Edward Bernays wrote a book on how the masses
are manipulated, and more than a decade after "Bush's Brain" mocked us, here we are
"judiciously studying" Empire's past action.
Meanwhile, Empire is acting, and "the masses" are acting and reacting across the globe.
And almost no one knows who pulls the strings, let alone are we organizing to overturn their
rule.
"... Russian gangsters &/or their capitalist counterparts, who have connections with state actors ..."
"... One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides. ..."
"... The largest concentration was on their house door. ..."
"... It would be easy to place it there if it were in gel form in the dead of night. ..."
"... the attack was carried out by another state or a non-state entity which had found the technical details of the Russian agent and manufactured its own stocks without being discovered, and had a motive for the attack. ..."
"... What actually happens is it completely distorts the narrative of what people think about things ..."
"... ex falso quodlibet ..."
"... The only thing that makes any sense is the accusation of chemical poisoning by a state power carries with it a level of condemnation that is beyond redemption. It is THE RED LINE. ..."
"... Never knew NC had so many CW/BW experts lurking ..."
"... I'd be mortified that someone carried this over a border ..."
"... But in the meantime, senior leadership has to be terrified (as we all should be too) and given a lot of leeway to figure this out. ..."
Many thanks for making an objective assessment of recent events within the UK that do have
major economic and geopolitical consequences, particularly the growing demand to confront
Putin for crimes most are oblivious too, that actual transgressions, rather than an extreme
Russophobia based on the most flimsiest of evidence that threaten a full scale nuclear
conflagration, which is an existential threat – and still they warmonger.
It is all rather more pernicious than this. essentially we seem to be sleepwalking into a
'Totalitarianism of the Centrists', whereby democratic outcomes must be denied, any dialogue
outside what they deem correct suppressed via the imposition of censorship to save us from
our own opinions, whilst professing a love for liberty and equality – forget wealth
inequality.
We have dived down a rabbit hole where the Overton Window has narrowed to an extent where
light itself cannot penetrate, such are the centrists so assured of their righteousness,
which is to all intent and purposes a cult – one we are required to obey without
question.
Time after time since the British electorate shocked a complacent establishment by voting
to exit the EU, we have witnessed a torrent of abuse heaped on those who dare to disagree. We
witnessed the gerrymandering and utter corruption of the Democratic Party Primaries, we have
witnessed the demonisation and desire to null and void the US November Presidential vote, and
we have witnessed within the UK not only a desire to void the EU vote, but the outcome of
elections even within political groupings, namely the UK's Labour Party.
Indeed, such is the desire by the Establishment to remove Jeremy Corbyn, that the entire
cannon of the MSM has been directed against him, whilst the Establishment forces within the
Parliamentary Labour Party have stooped to ever more devious depths to undermine and
eradicate the Leftist threat, to the extent of issuing early day motions giving carte blanche
to a government to wage war on Putin and Russia.
Should UK political events be of interest to Naked Capitalism and its readers above
economic consideration being given to Brexit?
In a nutshell, yes they do, because if the UK's Establishment fail to eradicate Corbyn,
and by chance he should enter Number 10, the global elite, Atlanticist and full ecosystem of
the Totalitarian Centrists have a real challenge on their hands to maintain an iron consensus
that's existed for 40 years if any breach to this comes into existence – Corbyn acting
as a Standard for others in the West who are sick and tired of an economic system that does
not work, unless of course you belong to that small minority referred too as the 1%.
Thank you Christopher for a superb, excellently put comment. This is what Tariq Ali calls
the ' Extreme Centre ' and how right you and he are. But neoliberalism is a Berlin Wall and
with each day that passes another brick falls out and one day, not so long away I believe, it
will crumble because it can no longer stand the strain of the forces marshalled against it.
They may be disparate at present , but such is the nature of political ' moments' throughout
history that at some point coherence occurs spontaneously and the ' ancien regime'
topples.
I must confess I've not read any of Tariq Ali's material for a while, essentially, and
since january, I've just witnessed such a full-on Establishment assault on Jeremy Corbyn,
with little or no scrutiny whatsoever of the actual Prime Minister, that its become alarming.
And with so much evidence now at hand both sides of the Atlantic, conclusions must be drawn,
namely, our liberal democracy is presently dead – if it were not for the Internet and
independent Blogs, we really would be living a Soviet era dystopia.
This article is not very useful, because it muddles together three separate issues, for
some of which there is evidence and for others only conjecture. A better source for trying to
understand what's going on is this
blog , written by an OPCW specialist.
I have no particular technical insight into this case, or CW in general, and I don't know who
carried out the attack, although I do have a little experience of how governments work. But
we need to get three things sorted out from each other.
First, according to open sources, and at least one leaked US diplomatic telegram, the Soviet
Union did indeed develop new types of chemical agent in the 1970s and 80s for use in a future
war, which were both more lethal than existing agents, and also exempt from the likely
provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention then being negotiated. This suggestion no
longer seems to be controversial. Again, according to open sources, these agents did not need
to be declared to the CWC, and seem not to have been. It has been suggested that they were
destroyed anyway, but we do not know, and if they were not, there was no violation of the
Convention. Thus, the statements by the OPCW and the UK Ambassador last year would be
technically true if Russia had destroyed all stocks of agents declared under the CWC, but not
stocks of these new agents. There have been allegations that the composition of these agents,
and perhaps information on their manufacture and use, may have been passed to other nations,
or been stolen by them. But there is no confirmation of this and no specific nations or
non-state actors have been mentioned. It remains a possibility, though. Because of this
uncertainty, Porton Down has said that the agent used was "of a type developed by Russia."
Because it's hard to prove a negative, we don't know, and may never know, if it was also
produced elsewhere. Thus the new Porton Down statement about which people are getting so
excited, but doesn't actually change anything.
Secondly, it's conceivable that the UK or some other country had completely separate
information about Russian assassination plans. If so, it would not be the kind of thing that
would ever be made public, so that remains supposition. But if you look at the UK government
statements, they don't suggest this. May used the terms "plausible explanations" on 12 March.
In the technical sense, her statement was probably correct: either the agent was used by the
Russians (not necessarily the government) or it was used by someone who had acquired the
formulas and production techniques from them. She was grandstanding, of course, but it's hard
to see what a third alternative would have been: a third country independently developing
exactly the same chemical agents seems very unlikely and there's no evidence for it.
Finally, politics, and here everything is speculation. It's hard to see what possible motive
the Russians would have for this attack, but anything else is just supposition, if not
actually wild speculation.
So shorn of the sabre-rattling the UK government position amounts to saying, "We know the
Russians developed these agents" (accepted) "we believe they failed to destroy them" (quite
possibly true but we have no means of knowing) and "there is no evidence that anyone else has
them" (accepted). The leap from this to blaming the Russian government, and dragging in
Putin, on the other hand, is pure inference, and pure politics.
I don't know whodunnit. The problem is that, whilst the evidence against the Russians (in the
wider sense) is ambiguous, and it seems impossible to find a reasonable motive, there's even
less direct reason to suspect any other specific actor.
So Novichok "does not figure in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC)"? Does "does not figure" mean not included? If it is not included does that mean not
banned?
Has there been any roughly similar events in Russia itself? The one that came to mind and
I looked up was Ivan Kivelidi. But that was cadmium poisoning I believe, so other than an
similarly obscure method, different.
I'm no expert on the Convention, but my understanding of it is that there are no 'banned'
substances as such, but 'controlled' substances, on the understanding that signatories are
permitted to have small quantities of nerve agents for research purposes. Hence the Iranians,
quite legally, made five variations of Novichuks (in very small quantities) and declared them
without anyone making a fuss over it. The Convention has a series of schedules of chemicals
which must be declared and facilities storing or manufacturing these compounds must be
available for OPCW inspection.
The Treaty also has an 'all other compounds' category that includes any organophosphate
which would cover non-scheduled chemicals. So far as I'm aware the obligation is to declare
stockpiles and manufacturing facilities of these and allow them to be open for inspection,
but there would obviously be a huge number of such facilities, including most pesticide
factories worldwide.
So far as I'm aware – and I can stand corrected on this – it is not 'illegal'
to have a non-scheduled substance, but there is an obligation to declare the manufacturing
facilities. Again, I can stand corrected on this, but I believe some of the Novichuks were
added to Schedule I after the Iranians reported that they'd synthesized them.
I read somewhere recently that this nerve agent was developed in Uzbekistan (or one of the
other Stan's) and that the production facilities had been cleaned out by the US military, as
the the satellite is now one of their allies? The article also claimed that most agricultural
pesticide producers could formulate is as it is related to insecticides used on crops.
Unless said actors had either produced false evidence in an attempt to justify military
actions before OR was known to make false accusations in order to condemn states they were
planning to attack. See US and UK in 2001. Add that this time around the UK Prime Minister
has every reason to try to distract her country from her incompetence and her government's
dishonest public policy, see Brexit, and there is a great deal of reason to suspect that the
real culprits have nothing to do with the state actor they are accusing.
There have been allegations that the composition of these agents, and perhaps
information on their manufacture and use, may have been passed to other nations, or been
stolen by them. But there is no confirmation of this and no specific nations or non-state
actors have been mentioned.
I can't find the link now, but I believe it was inferred from some statements that in the
past Porton Down had in fact synthesized similar compounds, at the very least so they could
develop techniques for identifying them.
Yes, I didn't want to write a long essay and anyway it's not my subject, but it's worth
pointing out that nations are allowed a Single Small Scale Facility on their territory for,
among other things, making and studying Schedule 1 chemicals (the most dangerous) for
protective and other reasons. I've just looked up the reference in the CWC So many
countries have technical facilities which could, in theory, produce small volumes of these
new agents as well. I hadn't seen the particular report you mention, but I think the basic
point stands – that there's nothing in the public domain to suggest that anyone has an
offensive programme producing more than a few grams of these agents for protective purposes.
And according to the CWC, these sites have to be inspected regularly. If these agents are not
in fact illegal under the CWC (which seems to be the case) then various nations might
reasonably try to synthesise small quantities for protective purposes, but I imagine it would
be very hard to hide the capacity to produce quantities useful for operations. But is there a
chemical engineer in the house?
Quantities needed for operations are on the scale of grams (based on the toxicity of the
substance). Industrial amounts were not used so looking for industrial capacity to produce
might be interesting but I don't see the relevance of doing so.
"US researchers had full access to the Uzbekistan labs"
In the books I mentioned elsewhere the labs had been abandoned years earlier with the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of the equipment and documentation had been removed with
the departing Soviets.. So yeah, the US had full access to the wreckage and learned things
but it was considerably different that access to a working lab.
I thought the article here was fine. Your summary didn't add anything except your opinion
that the evidence slightly favors Russia as the culprit. What, for instance, is the problem
with a third country developing exactly the same chemical agent? My impression was that the
formula is known. And all suggested motives are wild speculation.
I have no problem saying there is a reasonable chance Russia did it, but there is also a
reasonable chance someone else did it.
I think your last paragraph is very reasonable. But I don't think you understood what I
was saying, or perhaps I wasn't clear.
The British accusation, once you get past the flag-waving and heavy-breathing, amounts to
saying that one of two things happened. Either (1) the Russian government did it or (2)
someone else did it making use of either the technology or the actual agents developed by the
Russians. In the first case they argue that the Russians are directly guilty, in the second
that they are sort of vicariously guilty, like someone who leaves a gun lying around, or the
instructions on how to make a bomb. The only other possibility, it seems to me, is that
another country, in complete isolation from the Russians, and unknown to anybody, developed
precisely similar agents and had a reason to use them last month. The evidence for that is,
well, not very great.
The main problem, as I suggested, is mixing these sorts of arguments with political ones as
though they were the same. The kind of argument that worries me (though not found on NC, I'm
happy to say) amounts to saying "I loath May, she's having a rough time with Brexit, the US
lied about WMD in Iraq in 2002 therefore the Russians didn't do it, therefore the British
did." These are the sorts of arguments that we should leave to the CT sites to play with.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with your caution on this, but I don't think
I'd agree that the evidence isn't great that other countries have similar agents. I think its
clear that within chemical warfare circles, the cat has been out of the bag, so to speak, for
many years. The evidence would suggest that certainly the US, UK and Iranians have been
studying the compounds and have presumably produced small amounts to do so.
I think the British allegations (1) and (2) as you outline them are only the 'probable'
evidence if strong evidence is produced that the chemical used is closely related to Russian
(or Uzbek) manufactured stocks – i.e. it has the 'chemical fingerprint' of Russian
Novichok. The statement made yesterday by Porton Down came I think very close to stating that
this could not be established.
If you are to use Occams Razor, and work on the assumption that the act was carried out by
a non-State agent (or a rogue element with State connections), then that would suggest the
source was from the research facility an hours walk away from the assassination attempt, not
the alleged ones 5,000 km away.
How would they obtain it? A more plausible hypothesis is that Russian gangsters &/or
their capitalist counterparts, who have connections with state actors, some of whom have a
long standing grudge against Skripal, could have carried out the act. I am not saying that
they did, only that they have a strong motive and possibly the opportunity.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, all it takes is a decent lab to produce this stuff from
the information published on it by the people who developed it. As PK suggests, Occam's Razor
in this instance takes its edge from the very nearby UK chemical weapons facility that
made some effort to down play the information published by the inventors of these agents
back when they published.
My understanding of these agents is that they are a group of agents with a similar basic
structure. Their general formula has been published. A chemical engineer should comment on
how difficult it is to synthesize them. But keeping in mind that a Japanese fringe group was
able to synthesize a nerve agent, my guess is , not very. If the Iranian government is able
to synthesize it, then certainly any large university program in the west can. If they are
variants of organo phosphorus compounds, as most nerve agents are, then add fertilizer and
chemical companies to that list.
The absence of any such evidence,of their synthesis outside of USSR, means nothing. We do not
know what the defense and security establishments in most countries are doing. How many knew
of a weaponized anthrax program at Fort Derrick?
Many actors have a reason to discredit Russia/ Putin. You think otherwise?
So every time someone is murdered with a US made weapon or poisoned with US made
chemicals, or even with chemicals originally invented in the US, sanctions against the United
States are justified, if not WWIII, right?
The best analysis in the UK has been on Craig Murray's Blog, including full transcripts
appearing from the Sky News press interview and other media sites giving a UK Gov. version
– Murray used his own FCO contacts and his website and views have been 100% spot on to
date.
Can't agree, I'm afraid. Murray is good on other things, but here I think he's simply
misunderstood what the UK government was alleging, as I pointed out in comments last
week.
David says: '( ) according to open sources, and at least one leaked US diplomatic
telegram, the Soviet Union did indeed develop new types of chemical agent in the 1970s and
80s for use in a future war, which were both more lethal than existing agents, and also
exempt from the likely provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention then being
negotiated.'
I want to get one thing straight: Were the Soviets in the process of developing or trying
to do so or did they actually successfully make such chemical weapons? I can only suppose
these chemical weapons were in the pipeline when the Chemical Weapons Convention was
finalised and therefore couldn't be listed because they didn't (yet) exist. If so, how do we
know that the Soviets/Russians ever had such weapons? Looking around, I get the impression
there is some uncertainty about the history of Novichok, even though its Russian name works
prejudicially against Russia. However that may be, it is hard to accept that other states
hadn't made the same 'type of' weapon. After all, how is an antidote possible if the poison
is not known. Or is France involved? Everyone seems to assume that the nerve agent came from
outside the UK. Well, how would it every have physically been brought across the UK border.
Or was it manufactured there? Maybe for sale on the streets of London–or even somewhere
in the vicinity of Salisbury.
My understanding from what's been published is that the agents were developed in the 70s
and 80s, and their development was finished by the time of the CWC, which they were anyway
planned to circumvent. I think it's right to say that you don't necessarily "make" and stock
CW, because the literature suggests that they decay rather quickly. So whether the Russians
actually had stocks, or merely the capacity to make them when they needed them, I can't say,
and I doubt if there are many people who know. I think the antidote thing is a bit of a red
herring. These are not poisons. Nerve agents like VX and Sarin worked by paralysing the
muscles, and I remember that during the Cold War (and perhaps since) NATO troops carried
atropine injectors to try to counteract the effects. If these agents worked in the same way,
then I'm not sure there's an "antidote" – more like generic types of emergency
treatment which might save your life.
David: 'My understanding from what's been published is that the agents were developed in
the 70s and 80s, and their development was finished by the time of the CWC, which they were
anyway planned to circumvent.'
You mean the Soviets then agreed to the CWC without declaring their operational 'Novichok'
or their tested procedure to make them. Is this how it went? I really want clarity on this
point. The same CWC last year certified that the Soviet Union's successor state, the Russian
Federation of course, had destroyed all its chemical weapons. It seems to be that a lot of
individuals want to have everything all ways to pin the Skripals' attack on Russia. France
hovers in the background here and on Syria.
David: 'My understanding from what's been published is that the agents were developed in
the 70s and 80s, and their development was finished by the time of the CWC, which they were
anyway planned to circumvent.'
You mean the Soviets then agreed to the CWC without declaring their operational 'Novichok'
or their tested procedure to make them? Is this how it went? I really searching for clarity
on this point. The same CWC last year certified that the Soviet Union's successor state, the
Russian Federation of course, had destroyed all its chemical weapons. It seems to be that a
lot of individuals want to have everything all ways to pin the Skripals' attack on Russia.
France hovers in the background here and on Syria.
Read the second half of the book "The Dead Hand". While not talking about this agent it
covers a lot of this ground. Also "Biohazard" by Alibek and Handelman and "State Secrets" by
Vil Mirzayanov. All published about a decade ago.
Anyone know of any other books that more or less cover this topic?
"The same CWC last year certified that the Soviet Union's successor state, the Russian
Federation of course, had destroyed all its chemical weapons."
The CWC only certifies destruction of declared chemical weapons. Is this stuff on the list
of chemical weapons?
I wonder is this the biggest tell that the average punter must keep an open mind?
Cui Bono?
What benefit accrued to the Russians – diplomatic storm, threat of more sanctions,
possible war?
Of course, if one thinks that Vlad Putin is evil incarnate and loves killing for the sake
of it without thinking about the wider repercussions, and that the rest of the Russian
establishment has absolutely no influence or input into their government, the contention is
perfectly valid. (And of course it helps if we ignore that other governments in the world
have been reported to "eliminate" people they find threatening to their interests or for
other reasons.)
One scenario that might seem plausible has to do with the Steele Dossier. If Steele's
information is correct and Putin does have a sexual and financial blackmailing dossier on
Trump then, as Moon
over Alabama has pointed out, the Skripals probably were deeply involved in providing the
information to Steele..
The fact that this information was available to a fairly low level intelligence probe
would indicate that it is widely known in Russian Intelligence.
Why would such a powerful blackmailing dossier be so widely known? Remember when it was
produced. You have a buffoon reality TV star with political connections that will jump into
any honey-pot intelligence operation you provide. So salacious sexual tapes might easily have
been passed around for entertainment value when Trump would have been considered a low value
asset. Times have changed. Blackmail only works if the blackmailer controls the flow of the
blackmailing information. Putin would want to clamp down on any more leaks about a Trump
dossier. Hence both Skripal and his daughter would be blatantly targeted with a Russian
audience in mind. This is what will happen if you leak no matter where you go..
If Steele was able to obtain information about a Trump dossier then US intelligence
certainly has much more. Releasing the information that Trump is a "Manchurian Candidate" in
our current political situation would provoke a civil war. The Intelligence community could
try to cut the legs out from under Putin's dossier by pushing the Russian collusion story on
Trump's election. Any pro-Russian actions Trump makes will look suspicious to the general
public.. This would also explain the unprecedented attacks by former American Intelligence
chiefs on Trump. i.e. Ex CIA Chief Brennan's recent twee t "When
the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known,
you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history."
This does seem to tie a lot of things together.
1. Why Putin would assassinate the Skripals in such an open manner.
2. The push by Intelligence Services on the story of Russian tampering in the election with
little real evidence.
3. The unprecedented personal attacks on Trump from Clapper and Brennan.
It seems to me that attractive Russian agents who where trying to get their target into
the most embarrassing sexual activities would be very successful with Trump. Also remember
Don Jr. and Eric have both spent quite a bit of time in Russia. Also it seems almost sure
that the Russians would have enough information on money laundering to send the whole family
to jail. Who knows how much that could influence Trump's decision making.
The problem with that narrative is that none of the three people apparently poisoned by
one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man have actually died. Indeed, two out of three
have recovered in less time than some people take to recover from flu.
A less than fatal dose is maybe what was planned. From
the Guardian :
"Circles appeared before my eyes: red and orange. A ringing in my ears, I caught my
breath. And a sense of fear: like something was about to happen," Andrei Zheleznyakov told
the now-defunct newspaper Novoye Vremya, describing the 1987 weapons lab incident that
exposed him to a nerve agent that would eventually kill him. "I sat down on a chair and
told the guys: 'It's got me.'"
By 1992, when the interview was published, the nerve agent had gutted Zheleznyakov's
central nervous system. Less than a year later he was dead, after battling cirrhosis, toxic
hepatitis, nerve damage and epilepsy.
Only time will tell the final effects of the attack. This seems like a very horrible end,
worse then a simple assassination.
Using Novichok points the finger at Russia but also gives them a credible deniability,
(other countries can produce the agent). The target audience (Russians who know of the
dossier) will very clearly understand the warning.
Again this is only a scenario. But I feel that it is as plausible as any other put
forward. My other favorite is Moon of Alabama's guess that Israel might have done it .
Rather, Putin has been accused of similar things. Let's not kid ourselves – no
evidence has been made public, other than hyperventilation and unsubstantiated claims.
Exactly. Russia Hate proponents have banked heavily on blaming them or their allies for
chemical attacks -- this and in Syria –that only appear foolish in terms of any
plausible benefit/risk calculation and which are very open to false flagging. As noted above,
the conduct of the hate campaigns, in which a rush to judgement and attacks on appeals to
caution predominate, is simply alarming to see in societies that are familiar with the value
of careful evidentiary procedures and supposedly take them seriously. That this is coupled
with an utterly hypocritical anti-"fake news" campaign makes the situation seem all the more
desperate.
My impression is that we are witnessing a barrage strategy, in which a succession of
disputable accusations is made and each successive "crime" is used to undermine the
possibility of reconsidering the previous charge. I don't think of this as hysteria, but as
generating an atmosphere in which the threat of a charge of disloyalty and excommunicative
punishment, at least, begins to haunt us. As I've probably said before, one of the Frankfurt
School takes on fascist ideology was that in a sense it really wasn't one. At its core it was
not systematic, but an assertion of a demand to obedience. The fascist would blabber on until
someone objected, and then they would laugh and show them their pistol. As determined by the
Extreme Center, Russia-focused public discourse is headed in that direction.
Jiri Matousek accused the US of weaponizing novichoks at the Edgewood Chemical Biological
Center, as detailed in cables released by Wikileaks. Hard to imagine why a Czech scientist
would make that claim for no reason. While it's always pragmatic to refrain from rushing to
judgement, one of the issues with always insisting on authoritative sources as evidence
before reaching any conclusions is that the people who have the most to lose from that sort
of information being made available to the public are the same people that have
disproportionate control over the so-called authoritative sources.
According to the Russian who developed the chemicals, literally anybody with a modern
chemistry lab could produce them. Also, the chemical structures were published over a decade
ago.
One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its
binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial
chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.
(Mirzayanov, 1995).
Soviet scientists had published many papers in the open literature on the chemistry of
such compounds for possible use as insecticides. Mirzayanov claimed that "this research
program was premised on the ability to hide the production of precursor chemicals under the
guise of legitimate commercial chemical production of agricultural chemicals".
As the structures of these compounds have been described, any organic chemist with a
modern lab would be able to synthesize bench scale quantities of such a compound. Indeed,
Porton Down must have been able to synthesize these compounds in order to develop tests for
them. It is therefore misleading to assert that only Russia could have produced such
compounds. http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/doubts-about-novichoks
The claim that "there is no evidence that anyone else has them" (Novichok) is completely
false. The formula for making so-called Novichok nerve agents has been published in a book
that was sold to the public. Iran publicly admitted making such agents years ago to test
them.
Moreover, the UK would need to manufacture Novichok so it could have samples to test.
Simply put, if the UK didn't manufacture Novichok and run tests on it, then it would have no
way of knowing what Novichok type nerve agents look like in a blood sample.
Please note that since it is impossible to prove a negative, for example, prove Martians
never landed on Earth, Russia will never be able to prove it did NOT poison these people.
That is why our courts don't require criminal suspects they didn't commit a crime. Instead,
the state must provide evidence that the suspect is guilty. Putting the burden on Russia to
provide evidence to disprove its guilt is a propaganda trick.
I tried posting this before but it got lost in the intertubes. Suffice it to say, the
reported quote is: not a direct quote, a poor translation, out of context, and not refering
to Skripal.
At the time of the otiginal interview, the media reported the complete oposite meaning,
i.e. Putin says Russian sexret service don't kill traitors!
Occam's razor suggests, to me at least, that the poisoning of the Skripals occurred at the
Salisbury Zizzi restaurant. Interestingly, the Zizzi restaurant chain was recently (Feb,
2015) purchased by Bridgepoint Capital, a private equity firm with headquarters in London.
Bridgepoint appears to have some connections to the UK government, for example Sir Stuart
Rose (knighted in 2008), who sits on the Conservative Bench at the House of Lords, was
appointed to an advisory role in 2010 .
Anyways, just a data point, maybe the Skripals were poisoned somewhere else, but I'd be
intersested to hear if any of the UK-based NC commentariat are familiar with Bridgepoint
Capital, and if they know of any other connections to the UK government or intelligence
agenices that Bridgepoint has.
The largest concentration was on their house door.
Says who? No need to answer, as I know who said it; they are not even close to being
reliable sources of information. The house door claim has only recently been made, after the
claims that it was the car ventlation system, car door handle, Yulia Skripal's luggage, and
Russian porridge(!). My understanding is that these kinds of substances are very volatile, so
please enlighten me how it could reliably be established that it was the front door handle of
Sergei Skripal's house that contained the highest concentration of novichok four weeks after
the poisoning took place? FWIW there are photos of police officers standing by that front
door without any protection that were taken shortly after the poisoning occurred.
Adding: In case you missed it, my reference to Occam's razor referred to where
the Skripals were poisoned.
Ah. The police were also standing near the bench where they collapsed. I don't think that
shows much. The house door possibility was only recently made because it seems that they had
to have comapred all the sites they had been to before they could say that. It would be easy
to place it there if it were in gel form in the dead of night. The car door handle could be
explained by the agent coming off his hand, so this is consistent, though that does not mean
it is true. The others were speculation and clearly so. Russian porridge was ridiculous.
Occam's Razor also can lead to suggesting that they were poisoned where they were because
he lived there and therefore an easier target there. Porton Down could be an accidental
coincidence. Why he chose to live there is another question.
It would be easy to place it there if it were in gel form in the dead of
night.
Exactly, but not necessarily the night before the Skripals were poisoned. My suggestion is
that the poisoning occurred at Salisbury Zizzi restaurant, and that, in light of the
establishment's narrative having come apart at the seams since then, evidence has
subsequently been planted, perhaps, as you speculate, via the placement of a novichok gel on
Sergei Skripal's front door handle.
I mean, seriously, how likely is it that Sergei and Yulia would simultaneously collapse on
a park bench hours after one of them touched a nerve agent covered door when they left the
house that morning?
Not likely, I agree, if the attempted assassination was professionally carried out. But
what if it wasn't and the agent was substandard in qualtiy? I haven't seen anything myself
about the quality of the agent itself.
How many people does it take to close a door? The point I am trying to make is that both
Yulia and Sergei ate at Zizzi bar, presumably at the same time, and then they collapsed,
simultaneously, half an hour later on a park bench. Occam's razor suggests they were poisoned
during that meal. Also, and this is drawing a longer bow, Bridgepoint owns the Zizzi chain
and has connections to the UK government, thus, someone at Bridgepoint may have facilitated
the poisoning by, say, allowing someone from MI5 or MI6 to be there when it was suspected
Sergei and Yulia would be visiting, seeing as it was apparently well known that the Salisbury
Zizzi restaurant was Sergei Skripal's favorite place to dine.
MoA has been all over the place on this issue, he's been casting out a new theory nearly
every day, many of which are as far fetched as the 'Putin did it' ones.
Fair enough, however each change in direction has been accompanied by a summary of why the
change in direction has been made. b at MoA may not be perfect, but it's pretty clear he
disseminates information in good faith, which is more than can be said about any MSM
outlet.
On the contrary I'd say he's merely been offering altenative possibilities to the hysteria
and to the near impossibility that "Putin did it."
It's the MSM that speaks with certainty at every turn despite facts unknown. As someone
pointed out the once ubiquitous word "alleged" seems to have disappeared from our mainstream
journals.
'Yesterday, the Guardian drily reported that the absolute confidence with with the UK
government had pinned the poisoning on the Russian state was looking ill-founded'
I just think that's misleading, because there was never an assertion from the UK
Government that scientists at Porton Down had unambiguously pinned the origin of the nerve
agent as from Russia, only that the scientists had identified it as a nerve agent that had
previously been developed in Russia. I don't think the article says the conclusion was
ill-founded either in so many words, more that it overeggs the significance of the new
statement, as David points out above.
Porton Down worked fast to identify the agent, so they pretty much must have had a sample
to use as a standard. To pinpoint the origin they would need previous analysis of multiple
batches to determine discriminatory trace signatures. As these are binary agents it would be
especially challenging and quite time-consuming, if it was even possible.
Analysis is likely to be based on intelligence as to who was known to have samples of the
agent, and who had motive to take out Skripal, not the science at Porton Down. It is not
unreasonable to want to keep this information out of the public domain. This means it is
unlikely that we will ever be shown proof, or be able to assess for ourselves the quality of
the evidence. However, we equally cannot conclude from this that the evidence does not exist,
and one must presume that the EU and USA were convinced enough by the evidence they were
shown to join the UK in direct action.
What s clear is that the UK is a dangerous place for former Russian spies.
The press in the UK treated the statement as definitive too. They are now trying to
pretend that he was referring to something else in the statement he made by carefully editing
the question asked by the interviewer.
Isn't this just another situation like MH-17, & the supposed Syrian Sarin gas attacks
in which the actual facts are obscured in a political fog ? Perhaps we will never know in any
concrete way the actual truth of the Salisbury affair or the other examples, but there does
appear to a lack of the concept of reasonable doubt which doesn't stop the guilty till proven
innocent lynch mob from pointing accusatory fingers at their favourite big bad wolves.
One thing I am sure of is that Putin is not a fool & due to that conclusion I would
ask " Cui Bono ? ". A question that I was it seems under the mistaken impression was always
asked when trying to prove motive & I cannot think of any way that the affair would
profit the alleged white cat stroker, although I can certainly see how as part of the
constant demonisation of Russia, it profits the mudslingers, which is how I will refer to
them until they provide the sort of proof needed in the opposite of a kangaroo court.
I don't think it will result on it's own in a possible demonstration of the actual
capability of Russia's new weaponry, but I worry that it is another incremental step up a
ladder to nowhere good. Not likely the that the tin pot poodle will send an empty aircraft
carrier to the Crimea, but likely more of the same which appears to be resulting in Russia
becoming more self sustaining, while increasingly being able to hit back in ways that of
course wont hurt those with access to bunkers in any serious way.
It is about faith at the end of the day, as people will believe which version of the truth
suits them – after all we appear to be in a war if only a phony one – but the fog
where the truth is the first casualty is real enough.
With regard to MH aircraft, how about the one missing in the Indian Ocean?
Debris from an aircraft washes up frequently along the African coast from the Horn to the
Cape and the archipelagos to the east, including Mauritius, Rodrigues and Reunion.
Meteo France (Reunion) and France 2 (Envoye Special) are sitting on a report that suggests
the debris is coming from the direction of the Maldives and Chagos / Diego Garcia, due to
currents, and the state of decomposition and what's growing on the debris suggests its coming
from tropical waters mid-Ocean and in a timescale similar to when that MH Boeing 777
disappeared.
The wild goose chase south west of Australia was a way of diverting attention and allowing
the black box battery to run out of juice.
Tony Abbott was happy to engage in that wild goose chase; every dollar he spent was one
dollar closer to impoverishing Australia and making us peasants see the light of the Catholic
church. Just ask Bob Santamaria, or George Pell, for that matter.
& thank you Colonel – it does appear to me that one should carry a box of salt
for immediate use in times like that of present hysteria, to be used when proven liars make
knee jerk accusations, while of course keeping in mind that those who constantly Cry Wolf in
such matters could actually be telling the truth.
Schevardnardze once stated after the wall fell to a group of assembled Westerners that
they had lost their much needed bogeyman – I guess we now have him back as a
replacement for a series of inadequate pretenders.
The UK Government has not presented conclusive evidence that the nerve agent used in the
attempted assassinations of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia originated in Russia, let
alone that the Russian state was responsible for these crimes
.
The UK Government has not presented any evidence that a nerve agent was used, no evidence
that it was military grade and no evidence that it was from Russia. All we know is a doctor
stating some poisoning was detected.
MoA has all the links and details as to why it is such a blatant lie.
As to what did really happen, why the UK government set up such a scam, and why did so many
countries fall so quickly in line, many theories abound. I would exclude the 'Russian state'
here, as they can only loose and have nothing to gain.
Let me see. Who should we give the benefit of the doubt? The nations that attacked Iraq
and unleashed jihadi violence based on a lie or the guy who stood up like an adult and
prevented the fall of the only truly secular state left in the Middle East?
Ok, let me wield Occam's razor myself.
I don't think anyone seriously (and no I don't mean Johnson) is suggesting that only Russia
ever did or ever could manufacture these agents. Their existence has been known for a while,
and according to experts the formulas have been published, so at least in theory they could
be made by other states/actors assuming they were bloody careful. As PK has noted, the
Iranians, at least, seem to have made them in very small quantities. So in the end we have
three groups of hypotheses, if we exclude accidents, food poisoning, witchcraft etc. :
– the attack was carried out by part of the Russian state, by some other Russian group
(Mafia?) or some other unidentified group (not necessarily Russian) with direct access to the
agent itself in some stored form.
– the attack was carried out by another state or a non-state entity which had found the
technical details of the Russian agent and manufactured its own stocks without being
discovered, and had a motive for the attack.
– the attack was carried out by another state or non-state entity that had quite
independently developed an agent amazingly and coincidentally similar to the Russian agent
without being discovered and had a motive for the attack.
The third seems to me to be barely conceivable, and the second to rely on a motive which so
far no-one has even suggested. The first, to be honest, seems unlikely, but maybe some
variant of it is the least unlikely of the three. Somebody must have done it, after all.
Incidentally, Cui Bono is not a logical argument or a principle of proof, just a point of
departure for enquiry.
[T]he second [scenario] [seems to] rely on a motive which so far no-one has even
suggested Yes, it has been suggested: false flag. But that would just be crazy talk,
right?
"Besides, nowadays, almost all capable people are terribly afraid of being ridiculous, and
are miserable because of it."
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Neverthess, Cui Bono is I believe a useful tool in an attempt to define guilt & as for
the evidence in terms of the alleged nerve agent itself – is Porton Down what one would
describe as being an independent expert ? I did read somewhere that there is an international
agreement which comprises of samples in such incidents being sent to an agreed independent
laboratory for testing, which if true is a path the UK Gov has decided not to follow. I also
wonder about the toxicity of whatever agent was used due to the survival of the daughter,
which does not seem to correspond with what I have read about the deadliness of Novichok
& other varieties of nerve gas – amateurish at the very least which for me doesn't
fit that old KGB dog.
I don't know who carried at the attack but as you are admitting there is reasonable doubt
& i would suggest that in a proper court of law the case for the prosecution would be
about as watertight as a sieve.
From RT via Zerohedge so perhaps caution needed, but if true – a sign of a backdown
?
But what was "it"? Far as I can tell, the only deed that nobody is disputing is that three
people were treated in hospital for poisoning by a chemical agent. It's like tossing a deck
of cards in the air and trying to read them all before they hit the ground.
> the attack was carried out by another state or a non-state entity which had found
the technical details of the Russian agent and manufactured its own stocks without being
discovered, and had a motive for the attack.
As I'm sure you are aware, these technical details were published in a book written by Vil
Mirzayanov that was published in 2008 (IIRC) and has been available to the public since then.
In any case, watching Gavin "go away and shut up" Williamson react like a scorned schoolboy
who thought being one of the popular kids would be enough to allow him to dictate the
narrative was enlightening to me. I would suggest you spend some time learning how to watch
the way people carry themselves, rather than just accepting what they say at face value.
" What actually happens is it completely distorts the narrative of what people think
about things "
– Gavin Williamson comparing Russia's POV on the Skripal case to Nazi propaganda
Cui Bono is not a logical argument or a principle of proof, just a point of departure
for enquiry.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? To me, noting that Putin would have less of a
motivation to do this than, well, anyone who wanted to damage Russia's standing in the
international community and, based on that, reducing one's estimate of the likelihood that he
was actually responsible seems like an entirely reasonable thing to do. In what sense is it
not a logical argument to make?
Again, technically correct in what sense? My issue is I don't really understand the point
being made here. Is it that cui bono is not a formal rule of inference in the same
sense that, say, ex falso quodlibet is? If so, true, but largely irrelevant in a
context such as this one, where a meaningful formal proof of any claim is essentially
impossible. If not, what is being said?
Yes, it's a simple and common logical error. "X benefited from this, so they obviously did
it." Whereas the correct statement would be "X benefited from this so we should look to see
whether there is any actual evidence that they did it." It's a staple of all conspiracy
theories: the classic example is the September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. "The
Bush administration benefited from this so they must have done it." And there are plenty of
others.
This seems a rather uncharitable interpretation of the discussions being had here. You're
correct that, if someone were to bring up some specific non-Russian actor and assert that
they were obviously the perpetrator because they benefited, they would be in the wrong.
Correct me if I've missed someone, though, but I don't think any of the commentariat are
arguing that we know with certainty that some such actor was behind the attack.
The point, instead, is that we should keep an open mind as to who carried it out, since
there's no substantial evidence backing the official narrative or any particular
counter-narrative. Asking "Cui bono?" is simply one way of countering the nonsensical, but
widely held, idea that no real evidence is needed because the Russians are obviously
to blame; in point of fact, if one puts proper thought into the motivations of the various
parties involved and the evidence that is available, this explanation seems less
likely than many, though not impossible. The bottom line is that, if the UK wants its
accusations to be credible, it must provide more evidence than it has thus far.
Agreed. It's a way of countering lazy thinking, and I would instance subtle and
not-so-subtle hints that the UK government might have dunnit, which requires at least a few
elements of proof rather than just assertions. I think the argument is actually more powerful
if reversed, though, which is that in principle the list of potential perpetrators should be
limited to those who stood to benefit in some way. I'm not sure that Russia even makes it to
the starting line on that basis.
Can we all agree there has been a rush to judgment and that very rush to judgment has
seriously undermined the credibility of the accusations? We went from chemical poisoning to
Putin in a matter of minutes with nothing in between. No perpetrators, no witness statements,
and no release of evidence. The conclusions seem to predate the crime, the denunciations and
diplomatic expulsions coming even before the source of the poison was discovered on the door.
Having unpacked the bag of accusations, the various elements don't seem to neatly fit back
into the bag they came out of. And nothing frustrates real criminal investigators more than
lack of motivation. There is no reason to murder the victims let alone in the manner
ascribed.
The only thing that makes any sense is the accusation of chemical poisoning by a state
power carries with it a level of condemnation that is beyond redemption. It is THE RED LINE.
History tells us that the mere mention of such use renders immediately a judgment of guilt.
There is no going back. Normalization of relations is no longer an option. We must confront
absolute evil with all means necessary before we all end up writhing on the floor in a pool
of our own vomit, blood, and excrement delivered by an unseen power.
All happening at the precise moment May needs a major distraction to avoid being
confronted by the Ultras in her capitulation to the
EU, coincident with awkward
questions about the Steele Dossier being asked across the Atlantic.
Cui bono? Heard much on those stories lately? Just sayin'
The only thing that makes any sense is the accusation of chemical poisoning by a
state power carries with it a level of condemnation that is beyond redemption. It is THE
RED LINE.
Isn't that the whole point of this "Russia did it!" narrative though? A few columnists
were openly celebrating the fact that Trump wouldn't be able to have a private meeting with
Putin after this story broke. They're forgetting that it's Trump and it can still happen
regardless.
Also, if this stuff is 5x more powerful than VX, how did they set up a dose level that
sickened, but has not killed any of the targets?
We are talking a difference of a few hundreds of micrograms between lethal and
dehabilitating.
LD50 for VX is 10 mg, which means that for Novichuk it is on the order of 2mg (2000 μg)
(5x more potent according to reports),
It is not unreasonable to assume that a difference of 200 μg or so, about 0.000007054
ounces is the difference, and not one, but two targets threaded this needle.
Excellent point! But remember the idea that the public will accept the current narrative
is based on the fact that most Americans still believe that Boris and Natashia are
prototypical Russian agents in terms of competency.
Richard North has a fascianting blog post today about the Skripal affair at
eureferendum.com. The post is titled, Salisbury: A crumbling ediface of lies.
Seems so many crazy theories abound that I might offer up one myself :-)
The motive was love. One of the Skripals had an affair with an employee at the nearby
research facility. The cheated spouse found out and decided to end the affair. This
unbalanced individual stole poison from the research facility and then proceeded to try to
kill the Skripals.
The research facility would of course not admit that poison could be stolen so the killer
gets away with it as the facility provides the perfect cover – it could not happen.
That crazy theory has probably been discarded for the more probable: A foreign government
decided to go 'Bond-villain' or rather 'Austin Power -villain' when a simple knifing would
have ensured the deaths. What is the point of a deed if it isn't done with flair and high
risk of failure?
The Sun has an even more fevered scenario – the mother of the daughter's FSB lover
arranged a hit on her from Moscow. I've noticed some of the more lurid rumours are sourced in
that paper, then picked up by the rest of the media.
The issue with this stuff is how to deliver it, not in the manufacture. If I was in UK's
security services, I'd be mortified that someone carried this over a border, carried it
around the UK and finally delivered it to a target without any of their sensors anywhere or
systems picking it up. That alone should frighten us.
The other major issue is when the public disbelieves senior leadership so quickly on
something this serious, that's a major concern especially as the disbelief is fueled by an
adversary.
NC has a lot of political pragmatists that demand facts rather than propaganda lurking. If
you feel the need to equate that to NC commenters assuming they are CW/BW experts then that's
on you.
> I'd be mortified that someone carried this over a border
Which would be a fair reaction, however there is no evidence that any nerve agent was
carried over the UK's border.
Not only that but the only evidence we have of what it was that poisoned those people is
being held by the British government. The same people who were up to their elbows in lies on
the Iraq deal. And to answer TC's point. Yes, everyone should disbelieve our leadership
quickly. They have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. They manipulate us with fear
and they use modern techniques of advertising to march us all in the same direction. Putin is
the good guy in the Middle East and no amount of fear-mongering can make me doubt the facts
on the ground in favor of the idiots that brought us al qa'eda by feeding the jihadis in
Afghanistan and da'esh by feeding jihadis in Iraq and Syria. Cynical use of dangerous crazies
against governments our leaders perceive to be threats to their plans for world domination is
both dangerous and stupid.
Not the same people. The government in 2002 was led by one T Blair, a Labour politician,
who was willing to overlook falsehoods perpetrated by the US so as not to lose a position of
influence in Washington. Some of the present government were at school then, I think.
the brits still seem to be at washington's beck and call, witness the years long
persecution of julian assange, as well as pushing the "white hats" propaganda in syria.
nothing has changed there.
I guess you are still laboring under the delusion that the identity of the employees of
the powerful and moneyed interests that call the shots matters. Blair is an employee of the
people whose votes count–the guys who vote with money. You and I vote with ballots. How
many ballots does it take to buy a condo in the Virgin Islands?
tc rightly asks how the stuff got into the UK if it wasn't produced there. I know nothing
about chemistry or chemical weapons. Yet I can ask questions in response to the answers I've
heard: this stuff is so absolutely fatal that to me it seems inconceivable that it could be
transported by the usual plane, boat, train entering the UK; or being made of two (?)
substances that seem readily available as pesticides and/or fertiliser the nerve poison could
have been made inside the UK itself. So which is it: in or outside the UK.? In the last
instance the explanation for how it entered the UK is the absolute whopper I'm waiting
for.
I add: one way or the other there can only be questions of negligence, incompetence,
failure on the part of the state to protect its inhabitants from such harm: chemical weapons
are not just available for the asking on the streets of London; border guards, police,
intelligence agencies, etc. have failed. Who is responsible? This reminds me of those Saudis
who somehow learned how to fly aircraft into high buildings and succeeded in doing so. How
did they do it? Who failed in their duty to prevent the crime?
chemical weapons are not just available for the asking on the streets of London
Uh. Yes they are.
Fentanyl (cancer painkiller) and the much more toxic Carfentanil (Elephant tranquilliser)
are sold on the street by drug pushers. Carfentanil in particular has a lower LD 50 than
VX!
Which adversary yet to be announced. Time for this again, I guess. Now is the Age of
Advertising. There's a major adversarial component ( Caveat emptor ) in ordinary
business, and some ad-smarts are necessary for self preservation.
Peter Drucker:
Indeed the danger of total propaganda is not that the propaganda will be believed. The
danger is that nothing will be believed and that every communication becomes suspect. In
the end, no communication is being received. Everything anyone says is considered a demand
and is resisted, resented, and in effect not heard at all. The end results of total
propaganda are not fanatics, but cynics–but this, of course, may be even greater and
more dangerous corruption.
Management – Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices by Peter Drucker
Hannah Arendt has said something similar, he might have picked up the idea from her.
Patrick Armstrong
argues that just trying to argue this story on some kind of merits, as we're doing here,
is some kind of mistake.
Good comment Mel. Can't disagree with Drucker here. Arendt called her book on Eichmann '
The Banality of Evil ' . As Jordan Peterson said recently she might have more profitably
called it ' The Evil of Banality ' which is pretty much where we are now with the ' News '
and so simply attempting to analyse any part of this particular story rather than accepting
just the ' known , knowns ' is a waste of energy .
The analysis of this case does not revolve around expert opinion on chemical warfare. The
only people who have the chemical evidence are the British government. And they have proven
quite unreliable in the past. Furthermore, one need no expertise in CW to know that the
western allies have lied before, probably will lie again and to know that Putin does nothing
in a rash manner. That's why I believe the Russian government and disbelieve the British
government. It has nothing to do with CW. Sadly for the west, Putin has been the adult in the
room all along. His actions in Syria were measured and made perfect sense. The west, however,
decided repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 80s and support the very guys who brought
jihad to the west. Our leadership has failed us and the world. Putin is doing the right thing
in Syria and that's why the west is trying to blame him for everything with the possible
exception of the Lindbergh kidnapping. It is disturbing to me that we are so tribal that
people here in the west can't see that.
we don't even know what the stuff is, absent independent testing. as i understand it the
british government hasn't made samples available despite being required to do so.
Hats off to the people at Porton Down.
I can imagine how much pressure was applied to influence their decision.
Thankfully, they were braver than people like Colin Powell.
"And any developments of such geopolitical importance wind up having economic effects."
I'll say! In 51 weeks May and her government are going to be grasping for any ally that they
can find while fending off all those wanting to put the boot in. Russia may have been willing
to provide a few loans or deliveries of LPG gas on credit but I would say that bridge has
been well and truly burned. May and Johnson essentially used flamethrowers on it. Maybe then
they can take note of Saudi Arabia and gather up any remaining Russian oligarchs, stick them
in the Mayfair, and hang them upside down until they cough a few billion up for Her Majest's
Treasury.
Look, the whole fiasco was bogus from start to finish. Boris Johnson is now lying his face
off by saying that he never actually said that the Russians did it (he did) and May is
backtracking as the Salisbury attack is now coming under international scrutiny. I would like
to see if I cannot place the whole thing into some sort of context. May fingered the Russians
from the get-go and the usual suspects all signed up for her accusations. Dare I say it, as
if there was some sort of coordination behind the scenes. Trump not only ran with it, he
jumped into a Humvee and then floored it. Treaties and diplomatic practices have been ignored
or trashed on both sides of the Atlantic so I am wondering what was the benefit that hoped to
be gained.
There is the disruption of the upcoming FIFA games (as happened with the Olympics) but that
would only be a side benefit. It may be that the west wants to occupy eastern Ukraine with a
UN force (NATO in disguise) and this effort would have helped neutralize the Russians. It may
be to distract the Russians from Syrian but that is coming to a close. What I do wonder is
something that has been brought up several items and that a "reform" of the UN Security
Council has been suggested. Either Russia would be kicked out or perhaps there would be a
majority rule introduced to neutralize both China and Russia here. If Russia was under
international suspicion, it may have helped give the impetus for this "reform" to be carried
out. Maybe not a compelling theory but you do not organize an international effort on this
scale without some major benefit in mind.
You gave me a good laugh: 'neutralise both China and Russia' on the Security Council by
introducing a majority rule. Maybe that will end up neutralising the US, the UK and some
other bigwigs instead? No we're supposed to buy into the prejudice that things only go wrong
at the UN because of Russia and China? I'm doing my best to maintain a semblance of sanity
and I'm failing badly.
No, my idea is that both Russia and China block many votes that would give legal cover to
illegal actions in the UN that it is a hindrance to the west. Libya is an example when the
west gets what it wants by lying to both countries what a Resolution is all about. Remember
the number of times that the west wanted to put Syria on the hit list because they "gassed
their own people" and bomb the Syrian Army? Ask Nikki Haley how she feels about Russia in the
UN Security Council. Most of those that sit on the UN Security Council are either western
countries or vassal countries, hence a desire for a majority vote instead of having to have
all members agree to an action.
I'd say that Dmitry Orlov covered the topic well, and soon after the ludicrous charges
were being bellowed by the U.S. and U.K. governments.
Here is just one point that he made, a point that should, on its own, raise extremely
serious doubt about Russian government involvement:
Then there is the question of timing. Russia's presidential elections will take place in
just a few days, on March 18. This is a particularly inopportune time to cause an
international scandal. What possible urgency could there have been behind killing a
pardoned former spy who no longer possessed any up-to-date intelligence, was living quietly
in retirement, and at that moment was busy having lunch with his daughter? If the Russian
government were involved in the poisoning, what possible reason could have been given for
not waiting until after the election?
Unlike Orlov I can believe that Russia is behind this incident. When the Romanovs were
Czars and still in charge it wasn't a good idea to talk smack about or cross Mother Russia.
But I'm pretty sure that if Putin ordered somebody killed that they'd already be dead. The
fact that British spies have been acting like a crazy ex-lover ever since Brexit leads me to
think it isn't Putin. It isn't hard to imagine that the Brits would leave a dead animal on
somebody's porch, or a park bench, with the way they've acted.
Steele didn't write his dossier and start interfering in the US presidential election
until Brexit occurred. For all the media hysteria on this side of the pond about foreign
influence during our election they blithely ignore the fact that Steele wasn't alone and
another "former" British spook from GCHQ involved himself in our domestic politics. They
haven't attempted this kind of operation in the US since WWII when they attempted to smear
Adolf Berle and torpedo Henry Wallace's political career / presidential campaign as far as I
know.
On the other hand, their "willing handmaidens" in the US intelligence community are
receiving a taste of their just deserts. How many of them openly fantasized about murdering
Snowden?
Y'all are kinda running with a narrative thats presented from talking heads. Sad! Its
doesnt matter if its X mg, or door handles or someone said this or that or wave an agreement
signed before cocktails.
The real issue is that someone has this stuff near a major city, is walking/driving around
with it, and knows how to deploy it safely against a target who is security conscious. And no
one is sure who it is or how much of it they have. So, quarantining a likely suspect makes a
lot of sense – you can always say ooppss, sorry Boris. But in the meantime, senior
leadership has to be terrified (as we all should be too) and given a lot of leeway to figure
this out.
I see you don't follow this site. We are not "running a narrative". Go check our New Cold
War section in Links We've been regularly featuring articles from people who were skeptical
of the "Putin done it" claims from the get go, when that was a very much a minority view.
No one except the British government has the evidence of a) what the substance was b) how
it got there and c) how sick the Skripals really are. Note that they have not been allowed
visits from their government nor have they been allowed to be interviewed or even pictured in
the press. Anyone who believes the British government even one iota is very gullible indeed.
Naivete in great abundance here. Assuming that when Blair left the lies left with him. Wow!
Just wow!
Amongst all the learned posturing about "who done it" there are some much simpler
questions that need to be asked, and answered.
The UK lab states that the nerve agent was from the Novichuk "family". Irrespective of
which nerve agent it was, how did it end up in a UK city, who brought it there, and how did
an ex Russian spy, his daughter and a British Police Officer end up in hospital having come
in to contact with said compound???
Novichuk is not available in B&Q or Homebase (DIY stores for non-UK readers) It is a
military grade nerve agent and not something than be cooked up in the average terrorist
kitchen, and is quite likely to kill whoever is handling it, let alone the target.
In the 70's I spent time in the British Army in W Germany running around in my "noddy
suit" (NBC protective clothing which we hoped would work!!) in anticipation of the Warsaw
Pact putting in to effect its threat to be at the Channel ports within 5 days of any conflict
starting. We knew that Chemical and Biological weapons were likely to be used by Warsaw Pact
troops to contaminate our supply depots, and the Soviets knew that NATO would probably use
tactical nuclear weapons to stop the enemy tank armies. The chemical weapons would probably
arrive by artillery shells, but the downside to using such weapons is that once used, the
threat of death is the same for both sides.
There was a previous killing of an ex-Soviet spy in London using Polonium. The
availability of polonium is about the same as laying your hands on a nerve agent IE, State
Players Only.
The targets were the same, ex Soviet citizens who had been spying for the other side, and
caught and expelled from Russia. As the UK had given citizenship and refuge to the ex spies,
one has to ask who would be interested in killing them in vengeance?
Given that there are very few sources for Novichuk, and its use as targeted on a former
Russian spy living in a very pleasent British Cathedral city, the conclusions are very
limited.
we dont even know what was used, so how can we say "there are few sources" for it? that
means we don't know who used whatever it was, we certainly can't conclude it was the
russians.
Because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a statement to Parliament stating
that the agent concerned came from the Novichuk family.
If you don't believe the UK PM then perhaps you might understand why many in the UK and
Europe also do not believe the statements made by the President of Russia and the Russian
Government.
The attempted murder of a British Citizen and his Russian daughter and a British Police
Officer is a very serious matter, but for a Prime Minister to lie to Parliament is a
resignation matter, and possibly cause for a General Election. Politicians lie much of the
time or are "economical with the truth" but you cannot deliberately lie to Parliament and
expect to survive!
yeah the president of the us made statements about saddam wmd's, and so did the prime
minister of the uk. and yet, both survived and prospered. i don't believe politicians's
statements, i believe evidence. so far, no convincing evidence has been provided.
There have been suggestions that these were binary agents, similar to those developed by
the US in the 1980s, which consist of two agents which are only lethal when mixed together.
If they were brought into the UK, then they would have been safe to carry and not aroused
suspicion. In any case, in years of travel into and out of the UK I have never seen anything
resembling a CW detector. Mixing them together would have been a different issue, of
course
I was due to mix up some binary agents in the morning to repair a ding in my bumper. The
two part epoxy resin will hopefully not decimate the neighbourhood, and I will try not to get
it on my hands (sic!!)
I'm skeptical of international rules against nerve agents. Clearly something administered
by someone made the Skirpals deathly ill. Little story: When I was 20 the military screwed up
a test of nerve agent at Dugway Proving Grounds. It was carried by the wind beyond its test
range and killed a large herd of sheep. Dead as rocks. So two years ago when that very hearty
band of Central Asian antelope, the Saiga, were all found mysteriously dead – all of
them – and the incident was determined to have been caused by some fungus or virus, I
was more than a little suspicious. Close to that time there were teams of western researchers
looking at the Aral Sea and how to bring it back to life since it is currently a veritable
toxic waste dump, now an almost dry sea bed and the toxins are blown around capriciously by
the wind. People conducting research there were Americans. No doubt some Brits as well. And
now the Skirpals? Sorry to connect such estranged dots. Just thinkin.
In 1942 the British Government tested what the effect of anthrax would be if used in WW2
on a small Scottish island. The island is still uninhabited and anthrax spores can still be
found.
Chemical warfare was used in WW1 with devastating effect on the troops concerned, hence
the concerns in WW2 and later that an enemy might use them again. So devastating and
unpredictable are things like poison gas that neither side used them in WW2, but the threat
or possibility of its use had a considerable effect on the UK civilian population who all had
to carry gas masks at all times.
It is the possibility of an enemy using Chemical and Biological weapons which causes fear
in a population, far beyond the effects of it actually being used.
The UK became used to the threat of IRA bombings on the mainland and the population coped
with that and persevered, but as the PM stated to Parliament, the Salisbury incident was the
first time that someone had deployed a nerve agent on UK soil, and that is the question that
must be answered. Who manufactured and/or released the nerve agent to someone to deploy
against a UK target who was a former Russian spy who had worked for the UK. This was not a
random attack on the Underground or Parliament, but a targeted attack on a single family, and
this is not the first time a former Russian spy has been killed in the UK using a means only
available to a State Player.
I would have thought that authority to deploy a nerve agent on foreign soil, especially
against a NATO nuclear power, would have to be given at Presidential/Prime Minister level in
any government. Given the paranoia of such weapons falling in to the wrong hands, the
politicians are not likely to delegate use authority outside their office.
The US doctrine is that Chemical and Biological weapons are no different than Nuclear
weapons and the response will be the same. This is because the US destroyed their stockpiles
of chemical and bio weapons.
The United States declared a large chemical arsenal of 27,770 metric tons to the OPCW
after the CWC came into force in 1997. Along with Russia, the United States received an
extension when it was unable to complete destruction of its chemical stockpiles by 2012.
A 2016 OPCW report declared that the United States had destroyed approximately 90
percent of the chemical weapons stockpile it had declared as the CWC entered into force
; nearly 25,000 metric tons of the declared total of 27,770. The United States has
destroyed all of Category 2 and Category 3 weapons and is projected to complete
destruction of its Category 1 weapons by 2023 ;.
Novichok poisons were used by a non-state player in the 90s. It killed a banker and his
secretary in Moscow. Either by a business rival or personal matter apparently. The russian
police back then questioned all the scientists who were in the Novichok program.
So what you write is patently untrue, historically and of course on its face. Someone in
Porton Down, in Iran, in the US, Uzbekistan or of course Russia (probably more but those we
at least know of) could get their hands on it for their own ends. Even if it's just something
as simple as to sell it for cold hard cash to some "friend".
Please remember the anthrax scare in the US in the early 2000s: those were US made spores
but we can assume not even evil mastermind Cheney would have done this. Compared to Cheney,
Putin should be sainted or just given a Nobel.
Actually, CW has generally been pretty ineffective militarily, and counter-measures were
quickly developed in WW1. There are no proven examples of it having influenced the outcome of
a major engagement in the 20th century, with the possible exception of one point in the
Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s. It's subject to all sorts of problems of weather, wind direction
etc. In the Cold War, the Soviets planned to use absolutely enormous quantities of it
(thousands of tonnes) but essentially as a nuisance, to force NATO troops to fight in NBC
suits, rather than in the expectation of causing enormous casualties. As you say, the main
effect of CW is fear, and we've certainly had that.
It was extremely effective, even in primitive form, in WWI, that's why it was banned* from
war (but not on civilians/civil war) afterward. Bad for MIC business.
Sorry, it caused a lot of fear when it was first used, but counter-measures were developed
very quickly. Covering your face with a urine-soaked cloth was as effective as anything. CW
was considered inhuman, which is why there were measures to ban it, and it's potential
effectiveness was massively overestimated in the 1930s. It was fear of the potential effects,
rather than actual experience, which was important.
"Conclusive Evidence is Lacking" makes the UK government's case sound stronger than it is,
as if all that were needed were a few more pieces of the puzzle to fit and this thing would
be air tight.
Rather, as John Laurits has pointed out, the UK government has not presented ANY evidence
other than their say-so.
There is a considerable difference between who authorised such an operation, and the
people who actually carried out the attack.
You need one man or woman, probably the HOS, to authorise a nerve agent attack on the soil
of a NATO nuclear armed power.
You would probably need 5 people to actually carry out the attack on the ground and the
actual nerve agent could have come in to the UK in a Diplomatic Bag. The actual on-site team
could be from the security service of the country who authorised the attack and who probably
supplied the nerve agent, or the actual on-site team could have been from a third party
country who have friendly relations with those wanting the attack carried out.
I seem to remember that the Bulgarians have form in doing sub-contract killings with an
umbrella!!
There is no sub contract killing by bulgarians. The one killed back then was a bulgarian
dissident, attacking the bulgarian government or rather their elite persons back then and
killed by bulgarians for bulgarian reasons.
Yes, the KGB delivered the weapon, but as people wrote before: whenever someone now kills
with a gun, we blame the chinese, not the gunman. After all, they invented gunpowder.
I think this idea has great potential. China needs to be put in its place anyways.
As an observer on this out of control train called humanity, I stand in awe of the
collective gullibility of Western societies. This is same country and media that was
complicit in the Iraq war
Former UK prime minister Tony Blair could face war crimes charges as a result of the
long-anticipated Chilcot report into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a Liberal Democrat peer
told the House of Lords on Tuesday.
The second-worst case of denying access to anti-war voices was ABC in the United States,
which allowed them a mere 7 per cent of its overall coverage. The worst case was the BBC,
which gave just 2 per cent of its coverage to opposition views – views that
represented those of the majority of the British people.
"Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options," an
investigation by the House of Commons' bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly
condemns the U.K.'s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya's leader Muammar
Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.
By June 10, Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in
Libya, suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was part of a "massive hysteria".
The BBC went on to add another layer just a few days after Bassiouni humiliated the ICC
and the media: the BBC now claimed that rape victims in Libya faced "honour killings". This
is news to the few Libyans I know, who never heard of honour killings in their country.
The vast quantities of ordnance dropped since the start of Operation Shader against IS
in 2014 seriously undermines the claim by ministers that the RAF has not caused any
civilian casualties in the three-year-long bombing campaign, and has prompted calls for an
investigation.
Scenes in the 2013 BBC Panorama special Saving Syria's Children reveal that the
award-winning team of reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway OBE were embedded
with jihadi group Ahrar al-Sham which, according to Human Rights Watch, had three weeks
earlier worked alongside Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra as one
of "the key fundraisers, organizers, planners, and executors" of an attack in which at
least 190 civilians were killed and over 200 – "the vast majority women and children"
– were kidnapped.
All these interventions are violations of international law and war crimes.
IF the British intelligence services were involved in the Skripal case they have
quite the wicked sense of humor why on earth would Putin in the midst of an international
demonization campaign and on the eve of Russian elections and World Cup attempt to kill a
Russian ex-spy with a Russian nerve agent eight years after being released?
Putin was obviously trying to ingratiate himself to Theresa May by drawing attention away
from her capitulation on Brexit, and to Robert Mueller by drawing attention away from the
fact that his Trump investigation is based on BS possibly about to be outed by the no longer
talking Skripal.
There has been no real information provided at all, why should any of this be believed at
all? It's all one world threatening, "look at that over there!!!" distraction.
Your links to prior deceptions are an excellent frame through which to view the whole
kerfuffle.
I'm not unsympathetic, but let's not overstate it. The first is just grandstanding which
has no legal basis. The second is bad behaviour by the BBC but is by no stretch of the
imagination a crime, the third is true but there's no actual crime involved, the rape myth is
despicable but it's not a crime to spread it, the fourth is not proof of anything and ignores
the fact that the law of war recognises it is not possible to avoid non-combatant deaths
altogether, and the last, whilst showing questionable judgement by the BBC wouldn't be a
crime committed by their journalists even if it were true.
No matter how unlikely the idea that the Russian government was responsible may appear ,
"British governments and the BBC have done or said bad things in the past" is not an argument
in this case. There are better ones.
The attack against Libya by UK and France was a war crime, any way you slice it.
The handling of the UN resolution about a no fly zone for Libya was a further war crime or
international crime.
The attack by Britain on Iraq was a clear war crime.
We live thankfully in a post Nuremberg world. Unless it's a "Nuremberg only applies to
losers". That one you have to decide for yourself.
Yes the law only applies to losers as opposed to the winners as in Libor rate rigging,
sanction busting, money laundering bankers & the like, unless as in the cases of Madoff
& the Shrek guy you are foolish enough to rob the wealthy.
As David states in the eyes of the law none of examples above from foreign interventionism
are crimes in the legal sense. They are merely examples of moral bankruptcy which it appears
to me at least is nowadays one of the qualities required in order to become a winner or to at
least hang on to one's rice bowl. It is sad that success is apparently measured by comparison
to those who at least in my opinion, appear to consist mainly of dead fish eyed slaves to
power & unsatiable appetite.
why wasn't the invasion a war crime? have bush and cheney visiting switzerland recently?
nobody is going to prosecute them for it, since the us is still the dominant military power,
but doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime.
It was a crime in my view, but in terms of the law in which David was judging the events
nobody was prosecuted, as the law is only for the losers like Saddam Hussein, Milosevich etc.
I was perhaps rather clumsily attempting to make the point that the law is the winning elites
ass, & those who serve their interests, also gain a certain amount of absolution from
what I would describe as variations of immorality.
what do you mean it has no legal basis. the invasion of iraq was a war crime, and blair
facilitated it. aggressive war is not legal under the un charter.
France seems to be getting a free pass in the news about the Salisbury investigations.
Just why exactly did the British need to call in the French in the first place? What
knowledge did they have that the British did not have at their chemical warfare establishment
just up the road from Salisbury? I know that they were involved in declaring Sarin to be
identified going by the sample as supplied by the Jihadists from Syria from a chemical
attack. Did that 'expertise' help them to be qualified in identifying the sources of chemical
attacks? The Russians were certainly interested to know-
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/04/01/russian-embassy-sends-questions-on-skripal-case-to-french-foreign-ministry
If he fails to keep his mouth shut I wouldn't be surprised to learn in the tabloids in the near future of his (sadly fatal)
penchant for auto-erotic asphyxiation.
""Johnson also said that "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.""
Translation: "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago "which was done by
our Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies with the help of our special forces stationed in Syria."
that's all they learn in boarding schools - how to lie and lie and be good psychopaths: charming, fake, easy to bribe and natural
traitors, obsessed with money and status.
And above all how to develop that exhagarated catatonic accent so valued by Anglosheeple
I know many of these Public school boys - from Malborough, Harrow etc
Look no further than you local electric and gas suppliers who are likely publicly traded with a monopoly on the most traded
commodities in the world. Why does a human necessity have a monopoly - follow the money.
Lol....that's what I think, from my experience with dealing with retarded psychopaths. They just don't back down until you
directly address them and call them out on their bullshit, or just plain fucking slam them against the wall.
So err...is it going to be an "accidental" nuclear launch or dirty bomb, or I don't know.....a Russian ISIS attack? The possibilities
are endless with these slimey limey cunts. They're barely out of the European Union, yet are already faltering like a mule loaded
with lead.
Agreed, and some just go nuts when called out. It's worse than just the Brits. Trump is clearly somewhat on board, and Macron
seems to want a distraction, too.
Trump is in love with himself, Macron is in love with a granny, and Boris Johnson belongs to the fucking zoo with the gorillas.
What a world we live in, when the voices of reason are coming from Russia, China and Iran, and the irrational tantrum turd
throwing is coming from the West.
I might also politely remind you and others of Russia's ability to disable the US Aegis missile system, including the Raytheon
Tomahawk missile using a highly advanced electronic warfare suite known as Khibiny.
You do not need due process to hang him now neither :-) Ain't that cute when the process of law finally breaks down. Happens
when you support banksters operating a ponzi scheme to rob people...
Stupid cunt is a better description. He is supposed to be the number 1 diplomat but he is a classic attention seeking snowflake
who wants to be PM.
He blamed Russia immediately. Then tells everyone not to be Russiaphobic and then the stupid cunt compares attending the WC
the same as Hitler's 1936 Olympics.
Guy is out of his depth and making Britain look stupid.
Portland Down say they do not know where the nerve agent was manufactured (Portland down would have the records of OPCW to
check). Maybe Russia would have the data relating the nerve agent to a NATO stockpile. Note: If the nerve agent was so deadly
how come the person delivering it; is not ill?
Given this talk about "military-grade", it sounds more like something an American MIC manufacturer would make. Overpriced and
ineffective when used.
Three people affected. Hours after contact. Yet all three survived, in spite of the lack of antidote, as the BBC has reported.
Doesn't sound pretty "military-grade" to me. And if it is "military grade", should we even be shitting our pants at the constant
fearmongering over WMDs? If this is what military grade is capable of for terrorism, we're clearly spending way to much money
for this particular threat, now aren't we?
I don't buy the 'no antidote' business. Nerve agents work by blocking receptors in the nervous system. Atropine breaks this
block restoring normal nervous system action. The cop who was affected was talking within days yet the Skirpals were unconscious
for weeks, until Julia Skirpal made a 'miraculous' recovery. Did the cop get atropine?
If he fails to keep his mouth shut I wouldn't be surprised to learn in
the tabloids in the near future of his (sadly fatal) penchant for
auto-erotic asphyxiation.
""Johnson also said that "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric"
chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.""
Translation: "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago
"which was done by our Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies with the help of our special
forces stationed in Syria."
that's all they learn in boarding schools - how to lie and lie and be good
psychopaths: charming, fake, easy to bribe and natural traitors, obsessed
with money and status.
And above all how to develop that exhagarated
catatonic accent so valued by Anglosheeple
I know many of these Public school boys - from Malborough, Harrow etc
Look no further than you local electric and gas suppliers who
are likely publicly traded with a monopoly on the most traded
commodities in the world. Why does a human necessity have a monopoly -
follow the money.
Fifteen countries voted against Russia's bid, while six voted for it and 17 abstained.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have two-thirds of the votes in support of that decision. A qualified majority was needed,"
Russian ambassador Alexander Shulgin told reporters, adding " Russia as well as other states that are members of the Executive Committee
have been pushed aside from this investigation ."
UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson brushed aside Russia's request, calling it a "ludicrous proposal" designed to "undermine"
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation.
"Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon -
to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ." Johnson also said that "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.
"After the OPCW-UN investigation found that the Syrian regime was responsible, Russia blocked that body from doing any more work,"
he said.
Russia wants to discuss a letter sent by UK Prime Minister Theresa May to the UN Security Council which says it's "highly likely"
that Moscow was behind last month's nerve agent attack.
Meanwhile ,
as we reported yesterday , the chief scientist from the UK's Porton Down military laboratory facility, Gary Aitkenhead, told
Sky News that they had been unable to prove that the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia.
"We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent," Aitkenhead said. " We have not
identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to government who have then used a number of other sources
to piece together the conclusions you have come to. "
**PAGING COLIN POWELL. IS THERE A MR. POWELL IN THE BUILDING?**
The Porton Down chief scientist said that establishing the Novichok's origin required "other inputs," some of which are intelligence
based and which only the government has access to.
Aitkenhead added: " It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that
it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured ."
So whose job is it to determine where the Novichok was manufactured?
That said, it was also noted that the nerve agent involved required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only
in the capabilities of a state actor," and that there is no known antidote to Novichok - nor was any administered to either of the
Skripals.
Aitkenhead would not say whether the Porton Down facility had manufactured or maintained stocks of Novichok - long rumored to
be the case.
" There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility ," said the chief.
Boris Johnson has come under fire since the Porton Down chief's statement, as Johnson lied, saying in an interview two weeks ago
that Porton Down officials told him there was "no doubt" that the nerge agent came from Russia .
The Foreign Office told Sky News that Johnson "misspoke," which is apparently UK officialspeak for "he totally lied, but nobody
will hold him accountable for it."
Perhaps Johnson "misspoke" in his rush to locate a hairbrush?
The evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damming Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents probably don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin.
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained
that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents.
So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan.
Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands
of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia.
There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of
the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian
military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such
research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
The use of the "projection" technique (essentially accusing your opponents of doing the very things you yourself are doing)
in official circles has become widespread. It's biggest proponent is, of course, Shitlery who, as an example, recently accused
Trump of using his position to enrich himself and his family (Um....?). Now BoJo has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of obfuscation
and lies. Same technique. Specifically:
" Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon
- to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ."
And, of course, psychopaths actually believe their projections which allows them to speak with a straight face. And the MSM,
naturally, just blindly "reports" what they say. The internet is the only source of real information and the true investigative
journalism of any integrity. Which is, of course, why they are trying so hard to censor and close the sources of truth.
you can see here their modus operandi - one of the first NSA leaks by Snowden/Greenwald. There is a slide there called the
Gambits For Deception - all the tricks are there - how to never admit when caught lying, how to cover the small move by the big
one - basically all the BS this fat ugly clown is using are there:
projection is everything. America banned the Huwawie Chinese cell phone because they thought it was a threat. What are all
those Apples in China? Not even to speak about domestic use.
"... I think the Skripal story is where the liars finally meet their Waterloo. They got away with MH17, with Litvinenko, with killing Nemtsov, with Magnitsky, with using gas in Syria ... They got away with the snipers on Maidan Square. There is much more stretching back over the years Iraq, Georgia 2008 etc, but I don't want to belabor the point. ..."
"... contemptuous mockery ..."
"... That's not what the Porton Down chief said 3 April.. He said they could not identify the poison as having been manufactured in Russia. Johnson said a fortnight ago that he was told at Porton Down that there was no doubt about where it had come from. Am I missing something? Is that not an outright lie that he told Nemtsov's daughter in the interview and others? ..."
Points 2 and 3 really struck me, because, if he is right, than a large part of the effort in the alt-media to rebut this nonsense
is in fact only doing more harm.
I think the Skripal story is where the liars finally meet their Waterloo. They got away with MH17, with Litvinenko, with killing
Nemtsov, with Magnitsky, with using gas in Syria ... They got away with the snipers on Maidan Square. There is much more stretching
back over the years Iraq, Georgia 2008 etc, but I don't want to belabor the point.
Skripal is just another miserable false flag right from their playbook followed up with a timed avalanche of lies in the media,
and you can see how, considering what they got away with before, they think they can pull it off again.
It's obvious nonsense brought to you by proven liars.
The point of propaganda is to leave an impression after the details have been forgotten.
To get involved in discussing the minutiae of the story is to help the propagandists' aims.
Therefore treat it as a badly constructed story that is failing to convince.
Do this by analyzing the comments on the news stories which (at least the ones I've looked at) show that people are skeptical.
Also mock the meanderings of the story: At the restaurant! In the car! On the doorstep! Incredibly lethal but strangely
ineffective. Miraculous recovery of daughter. Baby wipes as effective protection. Reminiscent of White Helmets and their flip
flops, rubber gloves and paper masks; but, come to think of it, it's the same authors in both stories. Who, after so many lies,
are becoming overconfident and sloppy.
It's a startlingly incompetent theatrical production and should be responded to with contemptuous mockery .
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format,
with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia
Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
Johnson has now clearly been exposed as a liar in this Nemtsova interview [20 March, 2018] with him on DW:
Nemtsova: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly?
Does Britain possess samples of it?
Johnson: Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory
Nemtsova: So they have samples
Johnson: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's
no doubt. We have very little alternative but to take the action that we have taken. But I must say the difference between this
time and what happened 12 years ago with Alexander Litvinenko is also that there is much more sympathy in the international community,
far more understanding of the kind of behaviour that Russia has been engaged in in the last few years. And round the table in
Brussels, talking to all the other European countries, there's hardly anybody who hasn't experienced directly or indirectly some
kind of malign or disruptive behaviour.
Again:
Nemtsova's question to Johnson:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly?
Johnson's answer:
When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory they were absolutely categorical and
I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
That's not what the Porton Down chief said 3 April.. He said they could not identify the poison as having been manufactured
in Russia. Johnson said a fortnight ago that he was told at Porton Down that there was no doubt about where it had come from. Am I missing something? Is that not an outright lie that he told Nemtsov's daughter in the interview and others?
I would be very careful about pursuing this line of reasoning. From my understanding due to the fact that the substance didn't
kill them instantly this means it's impossible that such a nerve agent was used. If we accept what this specialist from Porton
Down Say's that means that we are conceding that he actually DID indeed receive such a nerve agent from the crime scene which
is in itself a lie.
Formula: Concede to 1 lie whereby the line of reasoning rests on the presumption of a non sequiter.
Basically this scientist is still either lying or more likely he was handed fake evidence due to the chain of custody issue.
mmm if anybody is generally in touch with Mr Armstrong i would urge him to add this line of reasoning to his points.
IMO the use of term false flag is devastating to the case is it implies that the attack took place but the purpose was to blame
the pesky Putinites however this is far less plausible (occams razor and whatnot) than THEY JUST SIMPLY MADE IT UP, as they're
very well known to do in the past. I.e. colin Powell presenting a vial of white powder VS Colin Powel sneaking the alleged wmd's
into the country and screaming "look! They dun have it!!!". This is especially important considering that there has been NO EVIDENCE
OF AN ACTUAL ATTACK TAKING PLACE, which is basically what we need to take them to task for.
Note that comments in most Western media are CENSURED.
Comments that jeopardize the decided narrative are simply deleted and profiles with repeated "wrong opinions" (its normally people
who refer to facts) are simply kicked out without explanation.
It happens in "Daily Beast", m.m. and in about all Scandinavian newspapers.
I am 58 and have Never seen the Real Truth the Full Truth only LIES put in such a way that if they get Totally Caught they
can disclaim the Lies then the show goes on.
bbc - msm all liar's and working for the british "regime's"
You can only use these debunk tools with open minded free people.
To question the government and authorities as written in MSM is impossible.
Any attempt by you or anybody to question the MSM narrative will make people feel unsafe and uncomfortable and make them reject
you because you/we have made them feel uncomfortable.
Even with close friends, you can pursuade them to question the narrative and feel doubt about the case, but they will still
refuse to make a personal stand because it jeopardize their relationship with the power.
"If the Authorities lie there is probably a good reason for it, in any case its not my business".
Western people are brainwashed to the state of Matrix and its done by semantics where Authority has decided which words are
negative and which words are positive.
This leads peoples thoughts through planned pipes with stop and contra valves like in a drainage system where you will feel uncomfortable
if you use words the power has decided are negatives.
You can see the absurd result on West television shows.
ISIS members are excused in MSM because "its their culture", "they have had a bad childhood", "we try to resocialise them", saying
Authority give them a cover and positive perception.
Muslim women with scarf are smeared in MSM as a "threat to our western values" and "oppressed by men" giving people a negative
perception.
When you now speak with Western people they will feel negative and look down on intelligent moslem women and feel positive and
admire mass murders because the System has dictated this perception. Pure Matrix.
BoJo the British Clown and his entourage, in refusing to provide samples and/or their analysis to Russia, has apparently never
heard of the concept of 'discovery', where the accused is afforded a review of all 'evidence' against them.
The Brits have now effectively turned the Magna Carta into the Magna Farta. This is no laughing matter.
This is not an isolated false flag. Allegedly the Baldrick styled cunning plan is just a lead up to Theresa's ff nuke attack
on London to be blamed on Russia. The Satanic Tory Party have really sunk to the depths of psychopathic paranoid insanity. Will
The Queen save us?
"... You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it? ..."
(This is a 'working thread' to collect various items related to the alleged 'Novichok'
incident in Salisbury and the fate of the British spy Sergej Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
For a wider overview of the case please check our longer write-ups linked at the end of this
post.)
The Russian government sent fourteen specific questions to the British
government and thirteen questions to
the OPCW . There seems to be some French involvement in the investigation of the alleged
nerve agent and Russia ask why that is the case.
Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to Britain, further increased the pressure on
Theresa May by publicly asserting
that the Skripal case was a 'provocation' carried out by British intelligence.
Telepolis
points out (in German) that this would not be the first time that a 'western' service would
stage such a 'provocation'. The Skripal case is indeed quite comparable to Operation Hades .
On August 10 1994 German officials in Munich 'found' 363 grams of plutonium on a plane
coming from Moscow. They immediately asserted, that the plutonium 'must' have come from a
Russian reactor. There was a lot of media panic, international political noise and condemnation
of Russia.
Time Cover August 29 1994
This put pressure on the Russian government to increase its security at its nuclear sites.
The U.S. offered to 'help' with nuclear security and thus got easy access to Russia's nuclear
secrets. The case broke in the mid of the federal election campaign in Germany and helped
chancellor Kohl to get re-elected.
Months later first leaks appeared, enterprising reporters dug deeper into the story and it
started to unravel.
Der Spiegel filled ten
pages (in German) with the explosive story.
SPIEGEL Cover May 10 1995
"The BND's Nuke Hustle"
"How German secret agents invented the plutonium hazard"
It turnedoutthat the
plutonium was not from Russia but had been planted by the German equivalent of the
MI6, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). Later leaks and counter-leaks created a convoluted
story to hide the truth behind it. A parliamentarian commission
investigated the case but the Kohl government eventually shut it down without any political consequences.
Shortly thereafter the deeply involved BND head, Bernd Schmidbauer, was sent into
retirement.
The Russian depict the 'Novichok' case as a staged 'provocation'. There is a historic
antetype for such a 'provocation' by a 'western' intelligence service. That gives the Russian
claim some significant merit.
---
It took only nine month for the 1994 'Operation Hades' story to fall apart. The 'Novichok'
fairy-tale may now see an even earlier end.
Chief executive of Porton Down research laboratory has told Sky News scientists have not
been able to prove the Novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from
Russia or establish its country of origin
Mind the gap, Mrs. May. Mind the credibility gap.
Video of
Mr. Aitkenhead's Sky News interview. (Nice word play included : He only
provides scientific evidence. The government may additionally have 'other' (i.e. unscientific)
evidence to make a case.)
In light of the Proton Down statement we can now state that Boris Johnson, on March 20
on DW , proved to be an 'absolutely categorical' liar:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to
find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
BJ: Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton
Down, the laboratory
So they have the samples
BJ: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are
you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
In the interview Boris Johnson tried to preemptively put any eventual fault in the case on
Porton Down. Today he received the response.
The update carefully distinguishes and discusses the various chemical substances and
research programs relevant to the British 'Novichok' claims. The 'Novichok' nerve agents Vil
Mirzayanov describes in his book seem to differ from the substances other Russian scientists
talked about in their recent interviews. The U.S. though, as well as other countries, has
evidently worked on some of the substances described by Mirzayanov and concealed these efforts
from the OPCW. The Working Group concludes:
The UK government has asserted that "No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent
and motive" to carry out the Salisbury poisonings. Published studies show that these
compounds can be synthesized at bench scale (sufficient for an assassination) in other
countries. The UK government's declared case therefore rests only on subjective judgements of
"intent and motive", which are open to question.
---
A few days ago Victoriya Skripal, a cousin of Yulia Skripal, was interviewed by the Russian
website MKRU (Ru). The Stalkerzone provides an
English translation of the full interview . From it we learn that:
Victoriya Skripal tried to get information on her allegedly poisoned cousin Yulia and
uncle Sergej from the British embassy in Russia since March 5. She also unsuccessfully tried
to contact the hospital in Salisbury. She heard from the Russian embassy in Britain that
Yulia is awake, can eat and drink and can say a few words.
Shortly before the incident Yulia had gained access to some $200,000 owned by her
deceased brother. This, for now, seems to have nothing to do with the case.
Sergej Skripal is not a lone man but has a number of friends and family in Russia and in
Britain who visited him regularly in Salisbury.
Sergej Skripal has two cats and two guinea pigs. Victoriya Skripal asks: What happened to
them? (They licked the doorknob and turned into walking-dead?)
Victoriya Skripal wants to travel to Britain and bring at least Yulia back home with
her.
Victoriya Skripal apparently also did
an interview with the Mail Online (or the Mail plagiarized its piece from
MKRU ). There seems to be no additional information in it.
---
British officials spread various theories about where and how the Skripal's were poisoned.
According to 'official' leaks to the British press the alleged nerve agent was smeared to the
door of Sergej Skripal's car, was in a pizza, in Yulia Skripal's luggage or perfume, or in the
car's air vent. I may have been sprayed by a mini drone, or the stuff was smeared onto to the
doorknob of Skripal's house or maybe it was, as claimed yesterday,
in buckwheat cereals brought from Russia on Sergej Skripal's request.
In my view none of these explanation is plausible. The multitude of the discussed
possibilities alone shows that either no one has a clue of what happened and how it happened,
or someone is trying to bury the case in a heap of misinformation. We shall call this phenomena
'Novi-fog'. It unmasks headlines like this one as mere propaganda: Poisoned
Door Handle Hints at High-Level Plot to Kill Spy, U.K. Officials Say . "It was on the
doorknob (maybe)! Thus Putin himself did it!"
---
John Helmer, who reports from Moscow, documents
that the British government is breaking several British laws as well as international
agreements by keeping the family and the consular service of the Russian embassy in Britain
away from the Skripals.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the Skripal case:
From the Guardian, Porton Down experts claim the nerve agent was Novichok but say they can't
prove it was produced by Russia. Also, Yulia seems to have recovered spontaneously from the
alleged military grade nerve agent as no antidote is available to counteract the effects.
That's some military grade weapon!
Downing Street has issued a plea for "proportionate" action from Russia to the Salisbury
poisoning row after its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warned that relations with the
west are now worse than during the cold war.
It is Highly Likely that the British did it.
They had the means, the manpower, the interest, and a purpose (motive).
The proof is they can't prove that anyone else, much less the Russians did it.
They were 8miles away with all the technical means to produce a poison.
They have acted like any criminal does when exposed. They blame others, particularly,
their obsessed enemy against whom they have acted vilely and criminally before.
So, elementary police work, fundamental analysis points only to the UK for the Salisbury
attempted assassination of their own paid stooge and his hapless daughter.
Just as in the case of the Germans, the US was the most beneffited from the false flag op,
since that way gained access to Russian nuclear facilities.
This time around this was plotted to justify a false flag chemical attack on Ghouta who could
have justified their illegal and unjustifiable stand in Syria, as well, as spreading a thick
fog over the presence and capture of their coalition´s SF in the terrain which would be
an scandal in case of becoming of public knowledge after the terrorist attacks that have been
place so far in European soil since 9/11 2001, an definitive crushing for the low rates of
popularity for both, May and Trump, not to mention Macron who just have suffered some several
weeks of general strike against his draconian ( to French standards ) labour reforms, and
which where nowhere mentioned in the "alt-media" since there was much more important issues
to report about, like the Skripal case....
IMNSHO, the main sin of V.V.Putin was not included in the part of his 1st March speech of
adress to the nation about state-of-the-art thachtical weapons, but in the first part related
to the necessity of betterment of people´s living conditions, by increasing wages and
housing access and conditions of habitability for families and young people, grant access of
those gifted to all the varied scoop into the Russian educational system so as nobody with
will and capacity gets out without the possibility of developing its strenghts, improvement
on health care system and elders care system so as life expectancy spands increasingly,
favour maternity conditions for working couples, and so on, and so on...
You have that this was broadcasted to the four winds, so as, everybody with a Smartphone
or IT connection could test that while in the US and especialy in Europe, the so called
"welfare state" is being dismantled at galloping pace, without nothing left to loot from the
working masses except the pensions system, and this only at few corners of Europe, here they
come, not only the Chinese, trying to get increasing number of people from amongst their
millions of citizens out of poverty every year, but now also, as in the times of the USSR,
Russia is offering just the contrary to what the Western powers, in their obscene richness,
are offering ot their enslavized working masses.
Now, you tell me that the class strugle has finished and has no sense nowadays....Of
course, nobody from the upper middle class who were those which in the higuest numbers voted
for Trump, in the hope that that way they would achieve a considerable lowing in taxes, is
going to tell you about this. You will onkly learn it from your peers, those who use Twitter,
even at the risk of being targetted by the same Intelligence Services who perform the flase
flags ops to obnubilate you and act as attack dogs of the elites trying to shut up and
demonize every time one of your peers shows its nose at their "blogs".....
"Porton-Down experts unable to verify the source of Novichok". From what I read, this is
simple not possible. The chemical was made in a lab more than 20 years ago, so there would
have to be a new batch. No samples from the previous lab were ever collected in the West;
instead, Western experts either had samples from an industrial facility in Uzbekistan that
does not exists anymore or samples they they had made themselves. Thus Porton-Down could
check if it was their own product (unless someone made another batch there without telling
the colleagues and using different sources of "raw" materials), and provide the history of
the substance by citing Mirzayanov.
It is different if we are talking about large stocks military of poison that was either
used before or had samples collected by
outsiders like OPCW. But every laboratory batch can be different.
That said, governments that joined UK in expelling Russian diplomats will probably stick
to "belief" in the argument about "the only suspect that had all three: motivation, technical
ability and characteristic brutality". I expect Boris Johnson 20 years from now claiming that
"knowing all the facts, he would do the same thing" and he could even slavishly imitate Tony
Blair "I passionately believe that ...".
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/gary-aitkenhead
"Gary has spent his career in the development and supply of mission-critical wireless
communications solutions to public safety, industrial and transportation sectors.
He has previously held senior global positions at Sepura and at Motorola Solutions, where
he had commercial responsibility for sales, services, operations and product management.
As Dstl's Chief Executive, Gary will lead an organisation of over 3,800 scientists and
engineers providing specialist, and in many cases world-leading expertise, across a
wide-range of disciplines...."
@ b who wrote:
"
Mind the gap, Mrs. May. Mind the credibility gap.
"
When one relies on a series of lies to move the public instead of truthful need, you can
end up twisting slowly in the wind, like May is currently doing.....couldn't happen to a
nicer puppet.
What a circus! Too bad it is so meaningful to humanities future. And now the Pope has
taken away the revenge of Hell for these folks. It is almost like there is no incentive to do
good and avoid evil.
Often wondered what the planned abort scenario was for 9/11 .
If the CIA etal had indeed wired the towers with explosives how would they go about
deinstalling said explosives if there
had been a major muck up and the plans for 9/11 were called off or delayed?
"Training exercises" is a good cover.
When Mossad was caught by an alert bystander planting a bomb under a car in Tel Aviv, it
was later announced that it had all been a "training exercise gone awry". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377746.stm
"September 8, 2001: Bioterrorism Exercise Is Held at a New York Airport
Edit event
A training exercise is held at New York's La Guardia Airport, based around the scenario of
a terrorist attack with a biological weapon"
And, you probably recall that active anthrax was being shipped, although "no one was at
fault", for years all over the place.
That is, anthrax created by the Pentagon that was "believed to be inactive" was actually live
anthrax and being shipped around the world. But no one was at fault.
Thus, if someone decided to pull the plug on 9/11 and had to remove the explosives from
the towers they could have declared
"training exercise has gone awry". The Pentagon could merely declare that they had held an
adjunct exercise in the towers and what the biological terror exercise thought was inactive
anthrax was actually live and the
towers would need to be evacuated while decontamination took place.
What does this and other reports tell us about the UK?
That it is owned and operated by criminal vermin.
Like the US.
These vermin are psychopaths or at least sociopaths.
They have murdered millions since the end of Cold War v1.
They intend to murder millions more in Cold War v2 (not so cold!) before they are
neutralized.
I hope my children survive until those vermin are eradicated.
i.e. The British government's assertions are based exactly on subjective interpretations
of supposed motive and method. The repeated "no other plausible explanation" - which the
French officials are now parroting - continues to place the onus on Russia to prove the
negative. It's a neat trick, as long as the media faithfully sticks to the talking points.
Which they will. Soon there will be an attempt to re-focus the topic away from annoying
details towards the alleged "pattern of aggression", such as May's statements today that
"standing up to Russia" will continue at least through Putin's new term.
The story just grows more and more embarrassing. I mean. if you want to frame someone, at you
get your act together!! no plodders!
And the the eternal Bumbling Boorish turns up, spout liars as never before!
Please FO Britain out to somewhere Titanic sank and do the same. You will not be missed and
the air in Europe is cleaner than without Minitrumpistan.
These idiots will lose face in an epic proportion when if one can prove Russia didn't do it,
considering how much fuss they made and how they humiliated Russia by expelling scores of
diplomats. And Russia will be able to openly ask for some kind of excuse or reparation of a
high order.
Meanwhile, the UK government seems to be glad to bury yet another case of mass gang-rapes
of British girls in yet another British town, because, fuck a thousand of their young
citizens, when a couple of foreigners get food-poisoning or whatever it's obviously of
highest importance...
It seems Novichok are the chemicals described in Mirzanyanov's book and are different to
those described by Russian/Soviet scientists who actually researched and developed various
compounds.
US/UK ensured no discussion or research into any of these compounds took place at OPCW and
elsewhere.
An ace tucked up their sleeve for future use.
With the UK now backing down? - or at least its case starting to fall apart - on its
novichok made in Russia claims, the ace has been used and nothing to show for it. It makes me
think a CW attack in Ghouta with very large number of victims was to be the pretext for an
almost instant attack on Syria and the Russian forces there.
I suspect Russian intel operations are as good as their weapons systems so they most likely
took out whatever crew of jihadists were to poison the victims. Then came the direct Russian
warning to the US and after that the sacking of Tillerson followed a few days later by the
sacking of McMaster.
From the a portion of the Mercouris article, it appears that the High Court Judge was misled
by counsel as to the applicability of the Consular Conventions, because they had not been
incorporated into British domestic law -- this is false as they had been so incorporated.
Counsel for the Official Solicitor, the agency representing MS. Skripal's interests, is duty
bound to inform the Judge about his error immediately after learning of it.
To add to my post @23 If the UK novichok narrative was a prep for the main play in Syria then
the narrative would only need to hold up for a couple of weeks, when attention would shift to
a large CW attack in Ghouta quickly followed by a US attack on Syria.
https://tomgard.blog/
Very interesting material, albeit in German. It may be that the GB´s amok run against
Russia could have to do with British, Israeli and US soldiers or consultants, who were
arrested in Ghouta after the Islamists lost.
As soon as i read the Telepolis article this morning, i just was stunned.
Despite me being of 6 or 7 years old at the time, i remember the media hype... And while i
wasnt able to connect the dots myself, because i obviously wasnt old enough the graps the
details or even the story at the time, i find it strange, that NO ONE in german MSM could see
the parallels, other then the small, non MSM Telepolis outlet (Which is one of the few german
media sources i follow daily).
Anyway, good to see, that this article has become known to B... As i think this is a big
part of the puzzle.
Suppose there were no military grade nerve poison, at least originally and whatever such
poison that was 'found' had been planted at a later time as required by the story told the
public. The refusal to provide samples to Russia or admit qualified people in to see the
victims and take stock of their medical conditions is exactly what would cover such a
scenario, and the later application of referenced stock would be likely exposed if Russian
scientists were to obtain samples.
How to cover one's posterior? How better than invite a close 'friend' to come in and also
do 'certified' testing on the samples you give them that confirm by 'independent' scientific
authority exactly your shabby, falling apart story. The world has some cop-on that Macron's
integrity has been and still is a marketable product at modest price and would go to any
length to accommodate a fine fellow PM as is Theresa May in her hour of need; she after all
gave a billion Pounds Sterling to DUP to join her to continue her stewardship of the British
Parliament, for Macron's assistance (read French establishment under Macron's direction)
several multiples of the DUP's haul could be made available at moment's notice - funny how
public treasuries work in such emergency.
What a fine kettle of fish the PM and her Parliament has made of that now 'Scuppered Isle'
(or was that sceptre'd isle?). Buckingham Palace might consider dismissing the current
Parliament and suggest to the subjects not to return most of the incumbents, or else Charles
will be king. That ought to keep the hoi polloi in line.
"If you watch the interview, the sentence where he says it would probably need a state to
make it is tacked on to the end. If you look closely, not only has the shot changed, the
camera and tripod have actually moved. I strongly suspect government handlers who would have
been in that room watching him were unhappy with his interview and wanted something which
implicated Russia more, so added a bit onto the end."
" ...It's Novichok or from that family... " he says later but at the beginning he
says 'it is Novichok'. Does he mean the known variants of Novichok or 'similar' agents?
Not to mention what does "We have not identified the precise source..." mean?
Precise source of where the agent came from or precise type of 'Novichok or novichok family'?
It's not like the interviewer made an effort to find out.
Oh, and it appears that the video skips or is edited at 00:46 seconds but there is no skip
in audio.
And I don't know if it is how they did the video, but the background looks as if it is
videoshopped in. Gary has very sharp lines around him. Maybe it is just 'enhanced' but it
still looks odd to me.
Vis the 00:46 skip/edit he's saying:
"and that it's, uh" - skip/edit - "military grade agent..". Did he fluff his lines?
The nanothermite used was applied as paint, so it would be extremely hard to remove. Also,
it must be recalled that preparations for 911 occurred during Clinton's presidency, thus
begging three questions: Did Clinton know? Did Gore know? Did Bush know? The Saudis were
clearly involved as it was a Saudi company that did the "remodeling" work at the Trade
Complex.
Killing/Murdering innocents for political goals seems to be a pastime only associated with
European nations and their spawn, like the Outlaw US Empire.
Kudos to b for recalling this previous false flag example of a very similar type!!
MoA has outstanding detectives! Too bad we're not actually employed so the
Truth can be told.
>>>> Peter AU 1 | Apr 3, 2018 2:57:15 PM | 25
Too late for East Ghouta CW black op as the final transfer of jihadists has already started -
why would Syria or Russia use CW against defeated groups?
1st batch of Jaish al-Islam rebels and their families have left Douma Wafideen crossing in
preparation for their transfer to Jarablus
A couple of days ago the jihadists tried to stage an 'incident' involving jihadists with
suicide belts blowing themselves up on buses transferring families to Idlib but Syrians and
Russians were tipped off perhaps by high-ranking double agents within jihadist groups and
forty suicide belts and their wearers were captured, so no atrocity.
Aitkenhead uses the term Novichok. Novichock is supposedly a family or group of chemicals
each having a specific name or designation code. UK has specifically accused Russia of using
agent A-234, yet it seems Porton Down cannot narrow the substance down to a specific chemical
compound withing a group.
The original statement from Porton Down was "Novichok or similar chemical", meaning they
cannot even say what chemical group the substance analysed belongs to.
So May now says they have other evidence that it was the Russians wot did it (intelligence,
but not to be revealed). It's ridiculous.
There are no new photos of the sufferers. Neither of the cop, who is supposed to have got
out of hospital, nor of Yulia, who is said to have come back to consciousness. Not a single
sign. Something is seriously wrong with the public explanation. The cop, being apparently in
reasonable health, should have been able to give an interview, but no, it hasn't been
done.
In the questions Russia has put to OPCW, the last four...
10. Has the OPCW's Technical Secretariat approved the disclosure of the investigative
material by the UK to the EU countries (according to available information, France has become
fully involved in the investigation)?
Who tricked Boris Johnson and May into this? When BND and Kohl did the plutonium stuff they
could be sure Russia would play along - and they did though it might have cost Kohl something
in negotiations.
What did it cost May to get EU countries and the US along?
The development came as a former Russian general warned the response to the Salisbury the
attack could trigger "the last war in the history of mankind".
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Evgeny Buzhinsky said the West was "cornering
Russia and to corner Russia is a very dangerous thing".
He added: "If the situation develops in the way it is now, it will end up in a very bad
outcome."
Write a hundred times: It is not possible to start a war against Russia, it is not
possible to start a war against Russia and China, it is not possible to start a war against
Russia and China and Iran .....
@37 peter - last question.. it appears there is some concern over the impartiality and
objectivity of the opcw.. as we saw in the case of khan shaykhun, "The OPCW-UN Joint
Investigative Mechanism,[15][16][17][18] the governments of the United States, United
Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, and Israel, as well as Human Rights Watch have
attributed the attack to the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad" in spite of the fact
it was the town was held by al nusra! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack
i think russia is right to be skeptical of the opcw's impartiality and objectivity
here...
The integrity of the Porton Down scientists has thrown a wrench into the Mossad plan. Mossad
got away with it in the Litvinenko caper, so rinse and repeat with a new "Russia-only
poison".
The non-scientist Brits don't have any answers beyond what the Zionist/US/NATO Deep State
told them to say because Mossad did it, probably without UK gov't knowledge at even the
highest/secret levels. (Easier to ask forgiveness than permission) The various
"locations/methods' being floated would have been salted with chemical "indicators" by Mossad
to make the confusion of potential scenarios plausible for the presstitutes and politicios to
regurgitate on-cue.
As I understand it, Porton Down must have a sample of A-234 in order to be able to identify
the agent used in the attack as A-234--a record of the fingerprint to match the recovered
fingerprint. However, Porton Down's saying it does not have any samples of A-234; so,
if it lacks samples, how can it discover the match?
The there's the further BS about the Skripals not having any close relatives or others
able to help.
Lies, Lies, Lies!
Oh, and did you hear what China's Defense Minister, currently visiting Moscow,
has said : "The Chinese side came [to Moscow] to let the Americans know about the close
ties between the Russian and Chinese armed forces." I really doubt he's lying.
Over at John Delacour's twitter site, he asks a simple question, "A simple question for
@MetPoliceUK, @WiltshirePolice, @BorisJohnson/#Fakes_R_us et al.
Where was Sergey #Skripal's car going at 2:55pm on Sunday 4th April when you assure us he was
eating risotto chez Zizzi?
There is a video clip from the Daily Mirror allegedly showing Skripal's car. John has done
lots of good work with the CW attacks in Syria. This dog is not letting go of the bone.
#9 Fatima Manoubia excellent post.
#23 Peter AU Syria and perhaps some local politics, Brexit, EU, discrediting Corbyn.
@Laguerre 36 The cop, being apparently in reasonable health, should have been able to give an
interview, but no, it hasn't been done.
PM May had a private meeting with DS Bailey on March 15 in hospital, before he was released.
Quite unusual. There's no other reason than collusion, as May herself might say.
Regarding impartiality and honesty, they are rare if not unknown qualities in every
government agency everywhere (based on my small sampling). Nearly everybody has a price. One
must get an informed opinion from a source that couldn't benefit from a wrong decision, and
wouldn't suffer from an honest one. That's difficult, but not impossible. In this case where
could one find an impartial lab for the test and evaluation? Perhaps in China or India.
Meanwhile my guess is that Porton was given an order to report (1) novichok and (2) Russia,
and they came most of the way with novichok, and probably Russia given #10's deduction powers
from the indicators provided.
BBC headline :
Florida shooting: Students defy transparent school bags rule
"The rules about the clear rucksacks, which were provided free to students, came into effect
on Monday as classes resumed after the spring break. Other security measures announced last
month include mandatory new ID badges for students, with plans also in place for
airport-style metal detectors.
"But students have argued that the new bags will not prevent future attacks and infringe
their privacy."
Mr. Corbin missed an excellent opportunity to score a goal!
Instead, he preferred to join the warmongers on duty, even after asking for care in the
investigations.
Like anyone without a spine, he was swept away by general hysteria.
Curtain, Mr. Corbin...
Sad.
Madame May is not walking back on any of this. She has doubled down: Daily Express UK,
reporting on Mr. Aitkenhead's interview with SkyNews, has this morsel:
Porton Down experts NOT able to prove Salisbury nerve agent was Russia made LINK
[.]
Mr Aitkenhead added there was no known antidote to novichok, and that none has been
administered to either Sergei or Yulia Skripal. He declined to say whether the lab had
developed or keeps stocks of novichok, but rejected suggestions it had come from Porton
Down.
[.]The latest developments come after retired Russian Lieutenant-General Evgeny
Buzhinsky warned that relations between Russia and the West could become "worse" than the
Cold War and "end up in a very, very bad outcome"
Mr Buzhinsky told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "A real war, worse than a cold war is a
real war, it will be the last war in the history of mankind."
A Downing Street spokesman responded: "As the Prime Minister has made clear, the UK
would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules.
"But this attack in Salisbury was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian
behaviour, as well as a new and dangerous phase in Russian activity within the continent
and beyond.
"As the Prime Minister has said, we must face the facts, and the challenge of Russia is
one that will endure for years to come."
OPCW said its executive council would meet in the morning in The Hague to discuss the
UK's Government's claim that Russia was behind the attack.
I have a few questions for Madame May. Recall you stated this nerve agent {Novichok} was 5
to 8x more toxic than VX? Mr. Aitkenhead has stated "there was no known antidote to
novichok, and that none has been administered to either Sergei or Yulia Skripal."
The Skripals are alive, Yes!? Daughter Yulia is up, eating, talking. How is that for a
miracle?.
I read one report Yulia's social media account was accessed while she was in a coma.
Lazarus.
Apart from general movilizations of elders in Spain claiming for pensions of dignity and
for maintaining the public pension system which saw several days of demonstrations which
conflued with the women´s day demonstrations...
Several general strikes in France during the last month of March. The strike of the French
railway workers, which will last until June, has the support of students, elders, hospital
staff and postal workers. That's how the French streets are today.
@46 daniel.. that bbc headline ""Russian spy: Source of nerve agent 'not identified'" tells
one all they need to know of what a lying sack of bs the uk has become on all levels, but
especially it's public state run media... the bbc tries to be as pathetic as may and boris
and succeeds!!
@47 lysias... your comment is worth repeating.. not enough folks know this.. " Israel has
not signed the chemical weapons ban, and is not subject to inspection by the OPCW." immediate
suspicion ought be cast on israel as a consequence... what a friggin' team player they are
hey? i guess that is why the usa/canada and a bunch of other loser nations love them so
much!
@53 likklemore.. quote from the article ""As the Prime Minister has made clear, the UK
would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules." what
bullshite! she means like how israel plays by the rules, by not being a member of the opcw
and not being subject to inspection... what a gang of lousy thiefs and liars they all
are!
"... In relations between countries, politics is known as diplomacy, and it is a formal art that relies on a specific set of instruments to keep countries out of war. These include maintaining channels of communication to build trust and respect, exercises to seek common ground, and efforts to define win-win scenarios to which all sides would eagerly agree, including instruments for enforcing agreements. ..."
"... This is not incompetence. They are doing exactly as their masters demand. Makes them look like bumbling fools, but hey, that's what happens when one sells their ass and soul ..."
"... You're not thinking. Deliberate Boris buffoonery is all part of the scam ..."
Since 1977, US diplomatic history has been, to one extent or another, a history of fantastic blunders.
Dmitry Orlov Mar 16, 2018
| 12,197
99
There is the famous aphorism by Karl von Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." This may be true, in
many cases, but it is rarely a happy outcome. Not everybody likes politics, but when given a choice between politics and war, most sane
people will readily choose politics, which, even when brimming with vitriol and riddled with corruption, normally remains sublethal.
He's the best his neocon masters could come up with
In relations between countries, politics is known as diplomacy, and it is a formal art that relies on a specific set of instruments
to keep countries out of war. These include maintaining channels of communication to build trust and respect, exercises to seek common
ground, and efforts to define win-win scenarios to which all sides would eagerly agree, including instruments for enforcing agreements.
Diplomacy is a professional endeavor, much like medicine, engineering and law, and requires a similarly high level of specialized
education. Unlike these other professions, the successful exercise of diplomacy demands much greater attention to questions of demeanor:
a diplomat must be affable, personable, approachable, decorous, scrupulous, levelheaded in a word, diplomatic. Of course, in order to
maintain good, healthy relations with a country, it is also essential that a diplomat fluently speak its language, understand its culture
and know its history. Especially important is a very detailed knowledge of the history of a country's diplomatic relations with one's
own country, for the sake of maintaining continuity, which in turn makes it possible to build on what has been achieved previously.
Complete knowledge of all treaties, conventions and agreements previously entered into is, obviously, a must. Sane people will choose
politics over war, and sane (that is, competently governed) nations will choose diplomacy over belligerence and confrontation. An exception
is those nations that cannot hope to ever win the game of diplomacy due to an acute shortage of competent diplomats. They are likely
to strike out in frustration, undermining the very international institutions that are designed to keep them out of trouble. It then
falls upon their more competent counterparts in other nations to talk them off the ledge. This may not always be possible, especially
if the incompetents in question can't be made to appreciate the risks they are taking in blindly striking out against their diplomatic
counterparts.
If we look around in search of such incompetently governed nations, two examples readily present themselves: the United
States and the United Kingdom. It is rather challenging to identify the last moment in history when the US had a Secretary of State
that was truly competent. To be safe, let's set it as January 20, 1977, the day Henry Kissinger stepped down from his post. Since then,
US diplomatic history has been, to one extent or another, a history of fantastic blunders. For example, as far back as 1990 US Ambassador
to Iraq April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,"
in effect giving the green light to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and setting off the cascade of events that has led to the current sad
state of affairs in the region.
Another highlight was Hillary Clinton, whose only credentials had to do with a sort of fake noblesse
, stemming from her marriage to a former president, and who used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself using a variety
of corrupt schemes. Among the lower ranks of the diplomatic corps, most ambassadorships went to people with no diplomatic education
or experience, whose only qualifications had to do with electoral fundraising on behalf of whoever happened to occupy the White House
and other partisan political considerations. Few of these people are able to enter into a meaningful dialogue with their counterparts.
Most are barely able to read a programmatic statement of policy from a piece of paper handed them by a staffer. In the meantime, the
UK establishment has been gradually decrepitating in its own inimitable post-imperial fashion. Its special relationship with the US
has meant that it had no reason to maintain an independent foreign policy, always playing second fiddle to Washington. It has remained
as a US-occupied territory ever since World War II, just like Germany, and, deprived of its full measure of sovereignty, could allow
its international organs to slowly atrophy from disuse. The benefit of this arrangement is that it has allowed the collapse of the British
Empire to proceed in slow motion -- the slowest and longest collapse in the long history of empires.
What little competence there was
left gradually drained away in the course of the UK's temporary dalliance with the European Union, due to end next year, during which
most of the rest of UK's sovereignty was signed away by treaty, and most questions of international governance were relinquished to
unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. And now, at the end of this long process of degeneration and decay, we have in the person of the
Foreign Minister a clown by the name of Boris Johnson. His equally incompetent boss Theresa May recently saw it fit to very loudly and
publicly violate the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention to which the UK is a signatory. To recap, Theresa May claimed that a certain
Russian-cum-British spy living in the UK was killed using a nerve agent made in Russia, and gave Russia 24 hours to explain this situation
to her satisfaction. Russia is likewise a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and had destroyed all 39,967 metric tons
of its chemical weapons by September 27, 2017.
On that occasion, The Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, stated: "The completion of the verified destruction of Russia's chemical weapons programme
is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I commend all of
their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication." The US is yet to destroy its stockpiles, preferring to squander
trillions on useless ballistic defense systems instead of living up to its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Here is
precisely what Theresa May did wrong. Under the terms of the CWC, the UK was obligated to provide Russia with a sample of the nerve
agent used, along with all related evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation.
After that, the treaty gives Russia 10 days
to respond. Instead, May provided no evidence, and gave Russia 24 hours to respond. When Russia formally requested to see the evidence,
this request was refused. We can only guess at why she refused, but one reasonable supposition is that there is no evidence, because:
May claimed that the nerve agent was Novichok, developed in the USSR. In order to identify it, the UK experts had to have had
a sample of it. Since neither the USSR, nor Russia, have ever been known to export it, we should assume that it was synthesized within
the UK. The formula and the list of precursors are in the public domain, published by the scientist who developed Novichok, who has
since moved to the US. Thus, British scientists working at Porton Down could have synthesized it themselves. In any case, it is not
possible to determine in what country a given sample of the substance was synthesized, and the claim that it came from Russia is
not provable.
It was claimed that the victims -- Mr. Skripal and his daugher -- were poisoned with Novichok while at a restaurant. Yet how
could this have been done? The agent in question is so powerful that a liter of it released into the atmosphere over London would
kill most of its population. Breaking a vial of it open over a plate of food would kill the murderer along with everyone inside the
restaurant. Anything it touched would be stained yellow, and many of those in the vicinity would have complained of a very unusual,
acrid smell. Those poisoned would be instantaneously paralyzed and dead within minutes, not strolling over to a park bench where
they were found. The entire town would have been evacuated, and the restaurant would have to be encased in a concrete sarcophagus
by workers in space suits and destroyed with high heat. None of this has happened.
In view of the above, it seems unlikely that any of what has been described in the UK media and by May's government has actually
taken place. An alternative assumption, and one we should be ready to fully test, is that all of this is a work of fiction. No pictures
of the two victims have been provided. One of them -- Skripal's daughter -- is a citizen of the Russian Federation, and yet the British
have refused to provide consular access to her. And now it has emerged that the entire scenario, including the Novichok nerve gas,
was cribbed from a US/UK television drama "Strike Back." If so, this was certainly efficient; why invent when you can simply plagiarize.
This is only one (and not even the last) in a series of murders and assumed but dubious suicides on former and current Russian
nationals on UK soil that share certain characteristics, such the use of exotic substances as the means, no discernible motive, no
credible investigation, and an immediate, concerted effort to pin the blame on Russia. You would be on safe ground if you assumed
that anyone who pretends to know what exactly happened here is in fact lying. As to what might motivate such lying -- that's a question
for psychiatrists to take up.
In considering all of the above, healthy skepticism is called for. All we have so far is an alleged double murder, no motive, doubtful
means, over 140 million suspects (anyone who's Russian?), and public statements that amount to political theater. As far as repercussions,
there is very little that the UK government can do to Russia. They kicked out a few dozen Russian diplomats (and Russia will no doubt
reciprocate); the Royal Family won't be attempting the World Cup in Russia this summer (not a great loss, to be sure); there are also
some vague threats that don't amount to anything. But that's not what's important. For the sake of the whole world, (former) great powers,
especially nuclear ones, such as the US and the UK, should be governed with a modicum of competence, and this show of incompetence is
most worrying. The destruction of public institutions in the US and the UK has been long in the making and probably can't be undone.
But the least we can do is refuse to accept at face value what appear to be blatant fabrications and provocations, demand compliance
with international law, and keep asking questions until we obtain answers.
Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the
Boston area.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an excellent 2009 profile , along with James
Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. He is best known for his
2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse
(he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of
subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.
This is not incompetence. They are doing exactly as their masters demand. Makes them look like bumbling fools, but hey,
that's what happens when one sells their ass and soul to the evil of zionism.
are you earnestly saying that Boris and Trashy are competent diplomats and politicians..... :-) Boris is the perfect baffoon..... a complete embarrassment of British diplomacy..... whereas the unelected PM Trashy May is in
a long row of PM one of the most incompetent, besides the ugliness, embarrassing PM in British history..... bad choices..... bad masters
You're not thinking. Deliberate Boris buffoonery is all part of the scam, just like that Commie Marxist lard arse Prescott
in Blair's circus show and George Brown in the Wilson circus show. They haul these treacherous pieces of filth out just to take
the piss out of the dumb voters.
Well, you cant blame them...they are following in lock-step what their masters have ordered...neither the US or the UK has
any diplomacy...they have opted for invading and decimating the defenseless of the world whose countries hold many valuable resources
Britain is no serious country, sort of Gilbert & Sullivan comedy... Just imagine if Russia had appointed as Foreign Affairs
a certain Zhirinovski. Would it be taken seriously? Likewise the UK. Only May's political buddies pretend to follow her absurdity,
because they feel obliged to cover her fiasco, lest they look too embarrassed...
"... Dear President Putin, Dear Mr. Lavrov, Let them! Let them holler. Let them rot in their insanity . – Respond to the UK no longer with words but with deeds, with drastic deeds. Close their embassy. Give all embassy staff a week to vacate your country, then you abolish and eviscerate the embassy the same way the US abolished your consulates in Washington and San Francisco – a bit more than a year ago. ..."
"... Stealing is in their blood. Mr. Putin, You don't need to respond to their lowly abusive attacks, slanders, lies. ..."
That is foolish sign of weakness . As if Russia was still believing in the goodness of the
west, as if it just needed to be awakened. What Russia is doing, every time, not just in this
Skripal case, but in every senseless and ruthless attack, accusations about cyber hacking,
invading Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and not to speak about the never-ending saga of Russia-Gate,
Russian meddling and hacking into the 2016 US Presidential elections, favoring Trump over
Hillary. Everybody with a half brain knows it's a load of crap. Even the FBI and CIA said that
there was no evidence. So, why even respond? Why even trying to undo the lies, convince the
liars that they, Russia, are not culpable? Every time the west notices Russia's wanting to be a
"good neighbor" – about which the west really couldn't care less, Russia makes herself
more vulnerable, more prone to be accused and attacked and more slandered. Why does Russia not
just break away from the west? Instead of trying to 'belong' to the west? Accept that you are
not wanted in the west, that the west only wants to plunder your resources, your vast landmass,
they want to provoke you into a war where there are no winners, a war that may destroy entire
Mother Earth, but they, the ZionAnglo handlers of Washington, dream that their elite will
survive to eventually take over beautiful grand Russia. That's what they want.
The Bashing is a
means towards the end. The more people are with them, the easier it is to launch an atrocious
war. The Skripal case is typical. The intensity with which this UK lie-propaganda has been
launched is exemplary. It has brought all of halfwit Europe – and there is a lot of them
– under the spell of Russia hating. Nobody can believe that May Merkel, Macron are such
blatant liars that is beyond what they have been brought up with. A lifelong of lies pushed
down their throats, squeezed into their brains. Even if something tells them – this is
not quite correct, the force of comfort, not leaving their comfort zone- not questioning their
own lives – is so strong that they rather cry for War, War against Russia, War against
the eternal enemy of mankind. – I sadly remember in my youth in neutral Switzerland, the
enemy always, but always came from the East. He was hiding behind the "Iron Curtain". The West
is fabricating a new Iron Curtain. But while doing that, they don't realize they are putting a
noose around their own neck. Russia doesn't need the west, but the west will soon be unable to
survive without the East, the future is in the east – and Russia is an integral part of
the East, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), that encompasses half the world's
population and controls a third of the world's economic output. Mr. Putin, you don't need to
respond to insults from the west, because that's what they are, abusive insults. The abject
slander that Johnson boy threw at you is nothing but a miserable insult; you don't need to
respond to this behavior. You draw your consequences.
Dear President Putin, Dear Mr. Lavrov,
Let them! Let them holler. Let them rot in their insanity . – Respond to the UK no longer
with words but with deeds, with drastic deeds. Close their embassy. Give all embassy staff a
week to vacate your country, then you abolish and eviscerate the embassy the same way the US
abolished your consulates in Washington and San Francisco – a bit more than a year ago.
Surely you have not forgotten. Then you give all Brits generously a month to pack up and leave
your beautiful country (it can be done – that's about what Washington is forcing its
vassals around the globe to do with North Korean foreign laborers); block all trade with the UK
(or with the entire West for that matter), block all western assets in Russia, because that's
the first thing the western plunderers will do, blocking Russian assets abroad. Stealing is in
their blood. Mr. Putin, You don't need to respond to their lowly abusive attacks, slanders,
lies.
You and Russia are way above the level of this lowly western pack. Shut your relation to
the west. You have China, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), Russia is part of the OBI
– President Xi's One Belt Initiative – the multi-trillion development thrive,
emanating from China, connecting continents – Asia, Africa, Europe, South America –
with infrastructure, trade, creating hundreds of millions of decent jobs, developing and
promoting science and culture and providing hundreds of millions of people with a decent life.
What would the west do, if suddenly they had no enemy, because
the enemy has decided to ignore them and take a nap? China will join you. Everything else,
responding, justifying, explaining, denying the most flagrant lies, trying to make them believe
in the truth is not only a frustrating waste of time, it's committing political suicide. You
will never win. The west doesn't give a hoot about the truth – they have proven that for
the last two thousand years or more. And in all that time, not an iota of conscience has
entered the west's collective mind. The west cannot be trusted. Period.
or sign up with Disqus or pick a name
Disqus is a discussion network
Disqus never moderates or censors. The rules on this community are its own.
Don't be a jerk or do anything illegal. Everything is easier that way.
All your points are valid. I am an American who is truly embarrassed by this ridiculous
anti-Russian
"theater" in the West. I am at a loss for words about this. Have never seen anything so
unprofessional and hysterical from supposed career diplomats. Is this irrational, hostile
"feeding frenzy" an admission that the time for the West is over on the world stage, and the
future ow belongs to Russia and China?
Yes, the West is on its last legs. Everything - from dreadful demography to desperate
economic policies to comically unhinged foreign policy - screams unfolding catastrophe.
Anti-Russian hysteria is simply an effort to consolidate atomizing societies. It won't work.
You can't fool all the people all the time, after all.
Orchestrated attack , organized, planned before and not the first one
.They try to accumulate so many provocations /with so many mostly innocent victims/ , so they
can later attack by force.
They loosing big. By going low and lower..
And they are mad and want to show at the same time what unbelivable trash , they are and what
dirt they can produce...That is the end of them...
British were poodles /Blair/ and now they act as a chorus /with others/ of hyenas and
rats...
Huge contrast with dignified and intelligent behaviour of Russians.
.It speaks to the world.
April 01, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - By now the West
– the US, Canada, Australia and the super-puppets of Europe, overall more than 25
countries – has expelled more than 130 Russian diplomats. All as punishment for Russia's
alleged nerve gas poisoning of a former Russian / MI6 double-agent, Sergei Skripal (66) and his
daughter Yulia (33), who was visiting her father from Moscow.
Sergei Skripal lived in the UK for the last seven years, ever since President Putin lifted
his prison sentence in 2010 in a spy swap with the UK. The pair, father and daughter, was
allegedly discovered on 4 March slumped on a park bench in Salisbury, England, not far from
Sergei's home. Apparently traces of the same nerve agent were found at the Skripal home's
door.
Russia in the meantime has started in a tit-for-tat move expelling western diplomat s
– in a first round 60, plu s closing the US Consulate in St. Petersburg. According to Mr.
Lavrov, more will most likely follow. – There will be an exodus and a counter-exodus of
diplomats, west-east and east-west. It looks like a Kindergarten at play – but is of
course a blatant provocation by the west on Russia and a continuation of the vilification of
President Putin – especially after he has just been reelected with an overwhelming
majority of over 76%. It's a provocation with zero substance, to further justify an escalating
NATO aggression against Russia. The war-bells are ringing – for a lie, an abject farce,
visible to a child. Only the blind, those puppets, because out of fear or out of stupidity, who
do not want to see – are supporting this new US instigated, UK executed drive against
Russia. The nerve gas, called Novichok, had been produced by the Soviet Union in the 1970s, but
was subsequently banned and destroyed under international supervision. The 'inventor' of
Novichok lives apparently in the US. Mr. Putin said, if the military-grade Novichok would have
been used, the only form the USSR ever produced, there would have been no survivors.
What hardly anybody talks about is that the secretive UK Defense (War) Ministry's laboratory
of Porton Down , is but 13 km away from where father and daughter were allegedly found
unconscious on a park bench. Porton Down is a highly sophisticated chemical and biological
weapons lab that entertains contracts with the Pentagon of more than US$ 70 million for
carrying out "experiments", including on humans and animals. Porton Down has the capacity to
produce Novichok.
At this point there is no prove – other than what the police reported – that
Sergei and Yulia Skripal were found on that dubious park bench. There are no civil witnesses.
The UK government does not disclose where the two are treated, what their current health status
is. Only on the repeated insistence of Mr. Lavrov that according to an agreement between the UK
and Russia (the USSR) in the 1960s, both countries have the right to inquire and investigate
about the wellbeing of their respective citizens, an official statement on 29 March from the UK
said that Yulia is doing better and is on her way to recovery, while her father is still in
critical but stable conditions (The Guardian, 29 March 2018). Is it true? – What if one
or both recover and have enough memory of the events to go public?
What if the two have indeed been poisoned at Sergei's home, or abducted and brought to the
Porton Down laboratory to be infected with the nerve gas and then later dumped to the park
bench? Why does the UK not disclose any 'evidence' they apparently have against Russia? –
No details of where the two are being treated? – No visits allowed. Russia's offer to
collaborate in the investigation is laughed off and refused. Is this a well-orchestrated MI6 /
CIA false flag, followed by outrageous lambasting by the UK's highest leadership against Russia
and her newly re-elected President Putin?
This criminal propaganda event is so full of lies, false accusations and deceit, pulling
along more than 25 (so far) western nations to condemn and sanction Russia in unison for
something Russia has with absolute certainty not committed. Just apply logic – a tough
challenge, I know, these days for the dumb-folded west – but logic would tell a child
that there is no sense, absolutely no sense, for Russia to carry out such an evil act. So, the
usual question is: cui bono – who benefits? – And the answer is also crystal
clear: Profiting from this sham are the war-mongering US / NATO and their miserable
vassal-allies – spineless for years – following lies, their governments are fully
aware of the lies, of the untruth Russia is accused of.
Adding injury to insult is Ecuador's new President, Lenin Moreno, who a few days ago has
shut up Julian Assange, Wikileaks editor, who is in political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London since July 2012. Under Moreno's gag-order, Assange is no longer allowed to
communicate with anybody in any form and shape and cannot receive visitors. The official reason
for Moreno – who has clearly become a traitor on his people – is that Assange
tweeted a protest against the arrest in Germany of Catalonian ex-leader, Carles Puigdemont.
Moreno has condemned Assange to a sort of isolation prison in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Who gave
Moreno orders to do so? – Well, I leave the guessing up to you. In any case Moreno has
become a prostitute as are most of the western world "leaders".
The real reason is most likely Assange's strong critique of the UK government, especially PM
Teresa May and her Foreign and Defense Ministers, for their vitriolic and unjustified
accusations and slandering of Russia and particularly of President Putin in the Skripal poison
case. Assange cannot leave the embassy for fear of being arrested and extradited to the US,
where he may face torture and worse, possibly the death penalty.
Diplomatic Relations
Let's take this a step further. Diplomatic relations between the west and Russia have
totally fallen apart. The doors are closed. Russia doesn't need the west. But the west,
especially Europe, badly needs and will every day more need Russia, a close ally and trading
partner for hundreds of years. The west, eventually abandoned and every day more enslaved by
Washington with weaponized refugees, with false flag terror attacks, leading to increased
militarization, to oppression and censorship, privatization of public goods and infrastructure
– Greece is but an example – and strangulation by Wall Street private banking and
troika (IMF, European Central Bank, European Commission) imposed debt, the west will beg Russia
to open her doors and show them her kindness – the kindness and openness Russia has been
demonstrating to the west over the past almost 20 years, despite flagrant western abuse and
demonization no end.
The western Anglo-Zionist-led empire will collapse. It's a mere question of time but
collapse it will. Today, not only a few, but all western "leaders" (sic) know that they are
committing suicide by teaming up with destructive Washington – and this against the will
of the majority of the European people. – Yet, they push a long this path of
auto-destruction. Why? – Have they been personally threatened, or else lavishly rewarded
if they follow the dictate of deep state-led White House and Pentagon?
The day may come when the west will knock desperately at Russia's door – please
talk to us, we need you . But this may happen only if they have not let themselves be
pulled into the abyss of annihilation by Washington. Their stupidity may just do that –
another few lies, accusing Russia of crimes against humanity she didn't commit and prompting a
war, an all-destructive nuclear war. The pretext could be another false flag Syrian sarin
attack on "her own people", wrongly blaming Bashar al-Assad; or a missile landing in Israel,
blaming Iran with the same no-proof propaganda fervor applied by the UK in the Sergei and Yulia
Skripal case; or North Korea – in the course of negotiations between Trump and Kim
Jong-un next month (April), the US / west launches a false flag missile, for example, from
Guam, that lands in Japan, destroying infrastructure and killing people, blaming it immediately
on DPRK, without any evidence whatsoever, but with a rigorous campaign UK-style, to the point
that nobody dares to contradict the obvious lie.
What if the current UK virulent and violent Russia slandering campaign is but a dry-run for
much worse to come? – By now the mental state of western society is at the level of
Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Goebbels', statement – "Let me control the media, and I
will turn any Nation into a herd of Pigs". Yes, that's what the west has become, a herd of
pigs.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources
and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World
Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at
universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH;
RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog; and other
internet sites. He is the author of Implosion
– An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed
– fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is
also a co-author of The World Order
and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance .
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.
"... Speaking in Moscow, Lavrov said there was "a lot of talk about a 'cold war', about the situation being worse than it was during the classic cold war, because then there were some rules, and some decency was observed". ..."
"... It came as a former Russian military official Lt-Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky warned that the conflict could even end up as "the last war in the history of mankind". In a thinly veiled threat, he said the diplomatic crisis could result in a "very, very bad outcome" and accused the west of "cornering Russia" which, he argued, was a "very dangerous thing". ..."
"... The deputy foreign minister, Alexander Grushko, called the poisoning of Sergei Skripal a "provocation arranged by Britain" in order to justify high military spending because "they need a major enemy". ..."
"... Russia is also keeping up the pressure on the UK to provide consular access to Skripal's daughter, Yulia, now she is recovering in a Salisbury hospital. ..."
"... Lavrov said it was outrageous that the UK was not letting diplomatic staff see Yulia Skripal . The Russian embassy in London claims the UK is in breach of article 36 of the Vienna convention by refusing consular access to a Russian national. ..."
"... Russia also warned it would not accept any international scientific findings on the nerve agent used to poison the Skripals unless its scientists were involved in testing the nerve agent samples. Moscow spelt out its conditions for cooperation before an emergency meeting it has convened for Wednesday of the executive of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. ..."
"... Alexander Shulgin, Russia's permanent representative to the OPCW, complained that Russian scientists have been barred from the tests owing to British objections. ..."
Russian ministers suggest that British secret services carried out Skripal poisoning to
distract from Brexit
Tue 3 Apr 2018 10.03 EDT Last modified on Tue 3 Apr 2018 12.34 EDT Downing Street has issued
a plea for "proportionate" action from Russia to the Salisbury poisoning row after its
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warned that relations with the west are now worse than during
the cold war.
Theresa May is visiting Scandinavia next week with the international security threat from
Russia expected to be at the top of the agenda.
Speaking in Moscow, Lavrov said there was "a lot of talk about a 'cold war', about the
situation being worse than it was during the classic cold war, because then there were some
rules, and some decency was observed".
He added: "I believe that our western partners, I mean primarily the United Kingdom, the
United States and some countries that blindly follow them, have cast away all decency, they are
resorting to open lies, blatant misinformation."
It came as a former Russian military official Lt-Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky warned that the
conflict could even end up as "the last war in the history of mankind". In a thinly veiled threat, he said the diplomatic crisis could result in a "very, very bad
outcome" and accused the west of "cornering Russia" which, he argued, was a "very dangerous
thing".
The deputy foreign minister, Alexander Grushko, called the poisoning of Sergei Skripal a "provocation
arranged by Britain" in order to justify high military spending because "they need a major
enemy".
However, Downing Street in effect called for calm at its weekly briefing for political
reporters, simply saying it expected the wider dispute with Russia would not be settled for a
long time. A No 10 spokesman said: "We need to respond in a proportionate way to this aggressive
behaviour from Russia and that's what we're doing."
He added: "As the prime minister has made clear, the UK would much rather have in Russia a
constructive partner ready to play by the rules. But this attack in Salisbury was part of a
pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, as well as a new and dangerous phase in
Russian activity within the continent and beyond. As the prime minister has said, we must face
the facts, and the challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come."
Russia is also keeping up the pressure on the UK to provide consular access to Skripal's
daughter, Yulia, now she is recovering in a Salisbury hospital.
Reports from Russia claim that a cousin has contacted the British and Russian authorities to
be given permission to go to the UK to be by her bedside.
Downing Street raised the possibility that the 33-year-old may have requested that consular
access be denied. It said access was based on a number of considerations "including consent
from the individual".
Russia also warned it would not accept any international scientific findings on the nerve
agent used to poison the Skripals unless its scientists were involved in testing the nerve
agent samples. Moscow spelt out its conditions for cooperation before an emergency meeting it has convened
for Wednesday of the executive of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The
Hague.
The OPCW is the internationally recognised body responsible for overseeing the 1997 chemical
weapons convention and has been testing samples provided by British scientists from the
Skripals.
The first results about the nature of the poison - which the UK believes to be novichok, a
nerve agent of Russian origin – are expected in days. Alexander Shulgin, Russia's
permanent representative to the OPCW, complained that Russian scientists have been barred from
the tests owing to British objections.
Russian Envoy to US: Skripal Case Pretext to Launch Long-Planned Smear Campaign
01.04.2018 The Russian Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, said
on Sunday that the Skripal case was a pretext to carry out a provocation against Russia that
has been in the planning stages for a long time.
"The developments in the United Kingdom served just as a pretext to carry out a provocation
against Russia that was planned a long time ago. We have closely monitored, who attended the US
Embassy in Moscow recently, what kind of people [attended it]," Antonov said in an interview
with Russia's Channel Five.
Read more at https://sputniknews.com/us/201804011063108307-russia-usa-envoy-pretext-skripal/
Russia
Claims Skripal Poisoning Was Staged By UK Intelligence
by Tyler Durden
04/01/2018
Russia's Ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, says that London's reluctance to share
information on the March 4 poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal has led Moscow to
suggest that London authorities actually perpetrated the crime.
"We have very serious suspicion that this provocation was done by British intelligence,"
Yakovenko told Russia's NTV channel – adding however that Moscow had no direct proof, but
that the UK's behavior constitutes strong circumstantial evidence in support of their
theory.
Read more at
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-01/russia-claims-skripal-poisoning-was-staged-uk-intelligence
Yulia
Skripal "improving rapidly": The unravelling of the Russian Novichok narrative
By Chris Marsden 31 March 2018
When placed in the context of the global anti-Russia propaganda campaign spearheaded by
Britain's Conservative government, Thursday saw the greatest Easter miracle since Christ rose
from the dead.
For weeks, the world's media has cited uncritically government claims that double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned March 4 with a "weapons grade" nerve agent,
known as a Novichok.
The agent was described as so deadly that the comatose Skripals were unlikely to ever recover,
and that if they did they would be brain damaged and physically compromised. On Wednesday there
were even media headlines that their life support might have to be turned off.
Read more at https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/31/yuli-m31.htmlRussian MFA Releases 14 Questions Addressed to UK on 'Fabricated Skripal Case'
31.03.2018 The complete list of questions has been published on the Russian
Foreign Ministry's website.
On March 31, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in London sent a note to the British Foreign
Service with a
list of questions regarding the 'fabricated
Skripal case '.
Russia is asking the UK to explain why Moscow was denied consular access to the Skripal case,
why France was involved in the investigation, what made the Britons believe that the nerve
agent was of Russian origin and does the UK have samples of the so-called "Novichok."
Yet another question focuses on the information about the antidotes used to treat the Skripals
and the fact that the UK medics had possession of these substances on site.
Read more at
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201803311063103452-russia-uk-skripal-case-russian-ministry-questions/
Which
countries are expelling Russian diplomats?
31 Mar 2018
Twenty-five European countries, Australia, Canada and the US have announced that they will be
expelling 123 Russian diplomats over the coming week.
Days later Russia responded in kind, expelling an equal number of diplomats from those
countries, except Belgium, Hungary, Georgia and Montenegro. It also announced that the UK
diplomatic mission to Moscow will have to cut staff by another 50 diplomats.
Last week, the UK expelled
23 Russian officials . In addition, Bulgaria and Luxemburg recalled their ambassadors from
Moscow for consultations.
Read more at
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/countries-expelling-russian-diplomats-180326191614898.html
Last
Act Of 'Novichok' Drama Revealed – "The Skripals' Resurrection"
Diplomat reminds that NATO inherited Czechoslovakia's chemical industry potential
March 29, 2018
Earlier NATO slashed the staff of the Russian mission to 20 from 30
MOSCOW, March 29.
/TASS/. NATO countries are using the chemical industry potential of the Czech Republic and its
developments in the sphere of protection from chemical warfare agents, Russian Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
The diplomat thus commented on the statement by the Foreign Ministry of Russia, which
mentioned the Czech Republic among the countries that had been developing the nerve agent
called Novichyok and used, as the UK claims, to poison former Russian military intelligence
officer Sergei Skripal.
"The work codenamed Novichyok was conducted in Great Britain, the
US, the Czech Republic and Sweden. The results achieved by these countries to create new
chemical agents of this type are reflected in more than 200 open sources of NATO countries,"
the spokeswoman said, noting that Czechia had been carrying out research into chemical
protection within the Warsaw Treaty Organization.
"In all media outlets, there are publications on this theme, which say that after the
organization's dissolution, the Czech scientific potential in this field was sought by its new
western partners and inherited by NATO," Zakharova said.
The Czech army performed special missions in the Middle East, including the work to
eliminate the consequences of the use of chemical weapons in Kuwait, the Russian Foreign
Ministry's spokeswoman said.
The publications existing in the media on the activity of scientific centers for the study
of chemical warfare agents in the Czech Republic make it possible to conclude that "an
important place in this research is held by nerve agents called Novichyok according to the
western classification, the Russian diplomat noted.
Thus, Czech scientists were numerously awarded grants of the NATO Science Committee. Also,
the NATO center for the protection against mass destruction weapons operates in the town of
Vyskov on Czech territory, Zakharova said.
"The development of antidotes and the so-called binding substances and ferments to absorb
the components of nerve agents is a separate area of the research of [Czech] toxicologists. The
Czech side is conducting research in close cooperation with NATO structures," Zakharova said,
noting that "the free possession by the Czech chemists of the characteristics of Novichyok-type
chemical agents "is evidence that this information is widely accessible."
"No one has accused or is accusing Prague of anything. We never make any accusations as
compared to British colleagues. We only say that even in the media space – and this is
not propaganda, these are not Russian media outlets but these are Czech publications –
there is a large amount of materials confirming the Czech potential in the sphere of chemical
research. This simply has to be taken into account," the Russian diplomat
concluded.
Diplomats' expulsion and Skripal case
On March 4, former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, who was earlier
sentenced in Russia for spying for the UK, and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a
bench near the Maltings shopping center in Salisbury, UK. Police said they had been exposed to
the impact of a nerve agent.
UK's top officials claimed later that the nerve agent had allegedly been developed in
Russia. Prime Minister Theresa May, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Defense Secretary Gavin
Williamson and others rushed to accuse Russia of being involved, while failing to produce any
evidence.
Moscow refuted the accusations of involvement in the incident and stated that neither the
Soviet Union nor Russia have ever done research into that toxic chemical.
Without providing
any proof, London expelled 23 Russian diplomats and suspended all planned high-level bilateral
contacts. Moscow reciprocated with expelling 23 British diplomats, ordering the closure of
Britain's consulate in St. Petersburg and terminating the operations of the British Council in
Russia.
On March 26, the United States declared 60 Russian diplomats personae non gratae. Among them
were 46 diplomats from the embassy in Washington, two from the consulate general in New York
and 12 more from Russia's mission to the United Nations.
Germany, Canada, Poland and France followed suit by expelling four Russian diplomats each.
Lithuania, Moldova and the Czech Republic expelled three diplomats, while Australia, Albania,
Denmark, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands – two. Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Finland, Croatia, Sweden and Estonia each ordered the expulsion of
one Russian envoy. Meanwhile, Ukraine made the decision to expel 13 Russian diplomats.
NATO slashed the staff of the Russian mission to 20 from 30. Bulgaria and Luxembourg
recalled their envoys for consultations.
Russia's Foreign Ministry promised that those countries' hostile steps would not be left
unanswered.
40 Commando Royal Marines and The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) have
staged the UK's biggest annual exercise to prepare troops for Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) operations. Exercise TOXIC DAGGER is supported by Dstl, along
with Public Health England (PHE) and The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), and is the largest
exercise of its kind in the country.
Specialists in CBRN from Dstl and AWE are able to create realistic exercise scenarios based
on the latest threat information. Completing the training and exercising against these
scenarios provides a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to demonstrate their
proficiency in the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat.
The three-week programme included Company-level attacks and scenarios concerning CBRN
vignettes, concluding with a full-scale exercise involving government and industry scientists
and more than 300 military personnel.
Major Rob Garside, from 40 Commando Royal Marines, said:
Working with Dstl means we have the most up-to-date information and a realistic exercise.
This ensures we are well prepared for a CBRN operating environment. It is vital we can make
rapid decisions and are able to protect and support specialists who come in to deal with any
incident. On operations these specialists are on hand to advise and we must ensure we already
have a strong understanding of their capabilities and what they require of us as a military
force.
The Dstl lead for CBRN exercises said:
40 Commando would be first on the ground in the event of a CBRN incident. We ensure they're
up to date on the latest threats and make the exercise truly realistic. They not only have to
provide a fighting force in an unstable environment, they must also be able to assess the scene
and know what they're dealing with.
Russia's Embassy in London has sent a list of 14 questions to the UK Foreign Ministry, demanding that it reveals details of the
investigation into the nerve-agent poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.
The questions
, provided in full below, include a demand to clarify whether samples of the nerve agent А-234 (also known as "Novichok") have
ever been developed in the UK. The embassy's statement calls the incident that started the recent diplomatic row a " fabricated
case against Russia."
1. Why has Russia been denied the right of consular access to the two Russian citizens, who came to harm on British territory?
2. What specific antidotes and in what form were the victims injected with? How did such antidotes come into the possession of
British doctors at the scene of the incident?
3. On what grounds was France involved in technical cooperation in the investigation of the incident, in which Russian citizens
were injured?
4. Did the UK notify the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) of France's involvement in the investigation
of the Salisbury incident?
5. What does France have to do with the incident, involving two Russian citizens in the UK?
6. What rules of UK procedural legislation allow for the involvement of a foreign state in an internal investigation?
7. What evidence was handed over to France to be studied and for the investigation to be conducted?
8. Were the French experts present during the sampling of biomaterial from Sergei and Yulia Skripal?
9. Was the study of biomaterials from Sergei and Yulia Skripal conducted by the French experts and, if so, in which specific laboratories?
10. Does the UK have the materials involved in the investigation carried out by France?
11. Have the results of the French investigation been presented to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?
12. Based on what attributes was the alleged "Russian origin" of the substance used in Salisbury established?
13. Does the UK have control samples of the chemical warfare agent, which British representatives refer to as "Novichok"?
14. Have the samples of a chemical warfare agent of the same type as "Novichok" (in accordance to British terminology) or its
analogues been developed in the UK?
A similar list, containing 10
questions
, was sent to the French Foreign Ministry by the Russian Embassy in Paris. According to the document, Moscow wanted to know on
what grounds France was involved in the British investigation into the Skripal poisoning.
Russia also demanded explanations on what made French experts conclude that the substance used in Salisbury attack was nerve agent
А-234 and that it was of Russian origins. The final question on the list read: "Have the samples of a chemical warfare agent
of this type or its analogues been developed in France and if so, for what purpose?"
Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were discovered on a bench in Salisbury in early March, with the UK claiming a Soviet-designed
nerve agent was used against them. Without a proper investigation being carried out, London said it was "highly likely" that Russia
was responsible for the attack and introduced sanctions against the country, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats.
Moscow has denied all accusations, decrying them as a "provocation," and demanded proof from the British side. However,
London refused to cooperate with Russia on the case, denying its consular staff access to Russian citizen Yulia Skripal and turning
down the request to provide a sample of the toxic substance in question.
On March 30 the Washington Post , the blog site of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, published
a report about the expulsion of some 'western' diplomats from Russia. The move was an expected
and proportional retaliation for the expulsion of Russian diplomats from some 'western'
countries.
The piece was originally published under the headline:
One by one Russia tells European ambassadors of latest diplomatic expulsions
This is visible in the web-address (URL) of the piece which was formed from the original
headline when it was first published.
The editors apparently disliked the original headline. It was factually correct but did not
create enough reason to hate Russia. The original headline was therefore replaced with a
factually false one:
For the record: "They", i.e. the ambassadors, learned of no such thing. Russia has not
expelled any ambassador. The report below the false headline does not claim that Russia did
such.
The blatant falsehood of the headline was immediately
pointed out in the comments to the piece. The @WashingtonPost Twitter account was notified of the 'mistake'.
Three days later the Post has not taken any corrective action. The fake news
headline is still up on its website. Most visitors of the Washington Post site will
not read the piece. They skim the headlines of the site and get a daily dosage of Russia-hate
from it.
The slogan of the Post , prominently displayed under its name, is " Democracy
Dies in Darkness ". When it peddles such sable propaganda it becomes obvious that the
paper hates democracy and an informed public. To curry favor with thuggish tyrants, as Post
owner Bezos does, is obviously more profitable than factual reporting.
40 Commando Royal Marines and The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) have staged the UK's biggest annual exercise to
prepare troops for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) operations. Exercise TOXIC DAGGER is supported by Dstl,
along with Public Health England (PHE) and The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), and is the largest exercise of its kind in the
country.
Specialists in CBRN from Dstl and AWE are able to create realistic exercise scenarios based on the latest threat information.
Completing the training and exercising against these scenarios provides a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to demonstrate
their proficiency in the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat.
The three-week programme included Company-level attacks and scenarios concerning CBRN vignettes, concluding with a full-scale
exercise involving government and industry scientists and more than 300 military personnel.
Major Rob Garside, from 40 Commando Royal Marines, said:
Working with Dstl means we have the most up-to-date information and a realistic exercise. This ensures we are well prepared
for a CBRN operating environment. It is vital we can make rapid decisions and are able to protect and support specialists who
come in to deal with any incident. On operations these specialists are on hand to advise and we must ensure we already have a
strong understanding of their capabilities and what they require of us as a military force.
The Dstl lead for CBRN exercises said:
40 Commando would be first on the ground in the event of a CBRN incident. We ensure they're up to date on the latest threats
and make the exercise truly realistic. They not only have to provide a fighting force in an unstable environment, they must also
be able to assess the scene and know what they're dealing with.
That's where Dstl, PHE, AWE and the Defence CBRN Centre come in, as we provide the technical information the Marines require.
"... All over the world there is deep skepticism regarding the claims made by the UK government. This is more than justified. The faces may have changed since Blair's Labour Party produced its "dodgy dossiers" to justify war against Iraq in 2003, but not the hypocrisy, scheming and intrigue that the British bourgeoisie have developed to a fine art. ..."
When placed in the context of the global anti-Russia propaganda campaign spearheaded by
Britain's Conservative government, Thursday saw the greatest Easter miracle since Christ rose
from the dead.
For weeks, the world's media has cited uncritically government claims that double agent
Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned March 4 with a "weapons grade" nerve
agent, known as a Novichok.
The agent was described as so deadly that the comatose Skripals were unlikely to ever
recover, and that if they did they would be brain damaged and physically compromised. On
Wednesday there were even media headlines that their life support might have to be turned
off.
Yet Thursday saw reports from Salisbury NHS foundation trust that 33-year-old Yulia is no
longer in a critical condition and was "conscious and talking."
Yulia's apparent recovery blows a hole in an official narrative that, by rights, should sink
it forever. Instead, as has happened on repeated occasions, the story will no doubt be modified
as required. Nothing must be allowed to prevent the UK, in alliance with the United States,
from continuing its push for further economic sanctions and the expulsion of diplomats to
justify pre-existing plans for military aggression on Russia's borders and in the Middle
East.
There are innumerable inconsistencies, contradictions and flat out lies in the case made
against Russia. Above all there has been no convincing political explanation advanced as to why
Russia would target the Skripals.
Nor is there anything linking the attempted murder of the pair to anyone -- least of all the
Russian state and the government of President Vladimir Putin. For the government, everything
hangs on the single assertion, based on undisclosed "findings" from Britain's Porton Down
chemical weapons facility, that the Novichok nerve agent used was "of a type" developed in
Russia and was so sophisticated, and its delivery so complicated, that a "state actor" must
have been involved.
Maintaining this lie has involved an accumulation of smaller lies, which depended on their
being accepted without question by the media. Even before the news regarding Yulia, this web of
deceit was in danger of unravelling.
Initial reports after the March 4 discovery of the Skripals reported as the likely cause of
their illness a "white powder" that was identified as the "opioid fentanyl." It was not until
March 6 that Russia was officially suggested for possible involvement and March 7 before the
Metropolitan Police first stated that a nerve agent was used.
On March 8, it was announced that a police officer, later named as Sgt. Nick Bailey, was
seriously ill in hospital because he was one of the first responders to the incident. Police
added that 21 people had received (unspecified) treatment.
Four days later, March 12, with hundreds of police and military personnel roaming Salisbury
dressed in biohazard suits, sealing off the bench area where the Skripals were found, cordoning
off the Zizzi restaurant at which they had dined earlier, etc., Prime Minister Theresa May told
Parliament that Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as of Russian origin. It was
therefore "highly likely" that Russia was responsible for the poisoning.
Russia has repeatedly denied possession of Novichoks, which were developed in the former
Soviet Union. It has pointed out that other states now hostile to Russia, including Ukraine,
could have possession and that its formula and the scientists involved are now both available
to the UK and the US.
However, the issue raised by recent events is whether there is any proof whatsoever that a
military-grade nerve agent was involved in the assassination attempt. Three related issues are
of significance -- what a Novichok is, how it is delivered and what it is supposed to do.
After its supposed identification, Novichok was described as being "five to 10 times more
lethal" than VX and sarin and, like them, either a liquid or a gas.
One of its creators, Vil Mirzayanov, who defected to the US, was interviewed March 16 by the
Guardian , describing it as the "most powerful and unique chemical weapon in the
world. "
No non-state actor had the capability of "weaponising" Novichok. "You can kill yourself it
is impossible without high technical equipment No one country has these capabilities like
Russia, because Russia invented, tested and weaponized Novichok."
"I believe they brought [in a] binary version," Mirzayanov said. "It's two ampules, small
containers, like a big bullet, put them together in a spray or something, and after that, some
mechanism which is mixing them, a couple seconds and after that you're shooting It could touch
any skin and in a couple minutes would take effect."
Upon exposure "the effects are fast and dramatic." The nervous system is hit, victims are
unable to breathe, they "cough and foam at the mouth," the "effects on the digestive system
trigger vomiting," "muscles convulse Many of those affected will wet themselves and lose
control of their bowels."
Given this account, the story of white powder naturally had to be abandoned. And it had to
be explained how a Novichok was delivered in a way that allowed for such complexities and still
meant that the Skripals left home for seven hours, during which time they went to the local
pub, had a meal at a restaurant and only then collapsed.
The first story was that Yulia had unwittingly brought the agent into the country after it
was planted in her suitcase. The second story is that it was placed on the Skripal's clothes --
supposedly accounting for the delayed impact. The third was that it was pumped as a gas through
the air conditioning of the Skripal's car.
None of this made sense and things worsened after no one else suffered any ill effects.
Various figures were given of hospital attendees, but all were released without treatment. On
March 22, DS Bailey left Wiltshire Hospital -- making his own recovery several days in advance
of Yulia.
Amid this debacle, May spoke in Parliament Tuesday boasting of the expulsions of 100 Russian
diplomats by 18 nations, including 60 told to quit the US.
Speaking at the start of a debate on national security and Russia, May declared that Sergei
and Yulia Skripal "remain critically ill in hospital. Sadly, late last week, doctors indicated
that their condition is unlikely to change in the near future, and they may never recover
fully."
If Yulia's recovery two days later were not embarrassing enough, the police also chose that
day to announce that the delivery of the Novichok to its intended victims had been carried out
by smearing it on the front door of Sergei's house!
No explanation was offered as to how this unsophisticated ruse remained undiscovered for
weeks, or why no one other than the Skripals and DS Bailey had been impacted. Instead, the
Metropolitan Police terrorist unit announced that it was now cordoning off a children's play
area near the Skripal's home, while handing back control of the London Road cemetery, where
Sergei's wife and son are buried, the Maltings shopping centre and the Ashley Wood complex to
the Wiltshire police.
All over the world there is deep skepticism regarding the claims made by the UK
government. This is more than justified. The faces may have changed since Blair's Labour Party
produced its "dodgy dossiers" to justify war against Iraq in 2003, but not the hypocrisy,
scheming and intrigue that the British bourgeoisie have developed to a fine art.
"... Was whatever happened on March 4 to father and daughter Skripal something other than what the official narrative reported? ..."
"... On March 31, Fort Russ reported that Yulia Skripal , Sergey's daughter, "visited her 'Vkontakte' (social media) page on the morning of March 7" – three days after the alleged poisoning incident. The official narrative claimed she and her father were in a coma, poisoned by a deadly military-grade nerve agent. It's possible someone else hacked into her site, but for what reason, surely not UK or US operatives, wanting no information conflicting with the official narrative getting out. If hacking occurred, forensic analysis could determine it, nothing suggesting it so far. ..."
"... On March 29, Salisbury District Hospital Dr. Christine Blanshard explained Yulia's condition improved markedly. She's "conscious and talking," no longer in critical condition. Was she ever as ill as officially reported, or if so, what is the hospital's diagnosis? Will Sergey Skripal's condition be reported improved ahead, recovering steadily? ..."
"... Clearly, whatever may have affected them wasn't a military-grade nerve agent. They and other Salisbury residents they had contact with would have been dead in minutes if poisoned by something this deadly. A few obvious lessons can be drawn from the above information. Never accept official narratives at face value on most everything – including major media reports. Most often they're meant to deceive, not accurately explain things. ..."
"... The alleged Skripal incident is the latest US/UK political assault on Russia – public enemy number one in Washington and London. Almost surely more provocative shoes will drop ahead, likely more serious, the trend heading in this direction. If Washington could pull off the elaborate mother of all 9/11 false flags, most Americans still believing the official Big Lie, staging the Skripal affair by the US and Britain would be simple by comparison. Escalating US/UK-led hostility toward Russia heads things perilously toward East/West confrontation – the ominous risk of nuclear war. ..."
Was whatever happened on March 4 to father and daughter Skripal something other than
what the official narrative reported?
Did anything at all happen? Were the Skripals poisoned or ill for another reason? Did
Britain conceal the truth about the whole ugly business – a scheme to frame Russia for
what it had nothing to do with?
When inflammatory headlines unquestionably support the official narrative, bet on
disinformation and Big Lies substituting for truth-telling.
Russia was framed for perhaps what never happened – at least not as officially
claimed.
On March 31,
Fort Russ reported that Yulia Skripal , Sergey's daughter, "visited her 'Vkontakte' (social
media) page on the morning of March 7" – three days after the alleged poisoning incident.
The official narrative claimed she and her father were in a coma, poisoned by a deadly
military-grade nerve agent. It's possible someone else hacked into her site, but for what
reason, surely not UK or US operatives, wanting no information conflicting with the official
narrative getting out. If hacking occurred, forensic analysis could determine it, nothing
suggesting it so far.
On March 29, Salisbury District Hospital Dr. Christine Blanshard explained Yulia's
condition improved markedly. She's "conscious and talking," no longer in critical condition.
Was she ever as ill as officially reported, or if so, what is the hospital's diagnosis? Will
Sergey Skripal's condition be reported improved ahead, recovering steadily?
Clearly, whatever may have affected them wasn't a military-grade nerve agent. They and
other Salisbury residents they had contact with would have been dead in minutes if poisoned by
something this deadly. A few obvious lessons can be drawn from the above information. Never
accept official narratives at face value on most everything – including major media
reports. Most often they're meant to deceive, not accurately explain things.
The alleged Skripal incident is the latest US/UK political assault on Russia –
public enemy number one in Washington and London. Almost surely more provocative shoes will
drop ahead, likely more serious, the trend heading in this direction. If Washington could pull
off the elaborate mother of all 9/11 false flags, most Americans still believing the official
Big Lie, staging the Skripal affair by the US and Britain would be simple by comparison.
Escalating US/UK-led hostility toward Russia heads things perilously toward East/West
confrontation – the ominous risk of nuclear war.
That's the scary reality ahead if madness defining US policy isn't curbed.
"... "the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since World War II." ..."
"... "deals with its enemies." ..."
"... "They realized that they have screwed up big time [with the Litvinenko poisoning] and decided to change their tactics a bit. Therefore, they do not show [any evidence] now, but keep it all in secret waiting for Russia to react to it. If there was, as they say, the 'Russian trace' there, everything would have been clear long time ago," ..."
"... "It's the same with Sasha [Aleksandr], if there was the 'Russian trace,' it would emerge over and over again up to this day. But the Scotland Yard was not looking for a criminal. Scotland Yard was covering the tracks," ..."
"... "Now they do not want to show these tracks altogether, since they know they will have to cover them up the same way as with Sasha." ..."
"... "It will be very difficult to hide it all. And they will eventually fail. They will be caught, and Theresa May will be very ashamed. And this clown, their Foreign Minister [Boris Johnson] – he will be very ashamed too." ..."
"... "They are hostages, all of them are hostages of the American authorities, who strive for the world dominance. As long as that's the case – they will kill the Russians, they'll kill anybody who's against it," Litvinenko said. The wealthy Russians in the UK "are all dependent on the authorities... They are being kept only for their money. And when something happens, they will be blatantly robbed, like it happened to Berezovsky." ..."
"... "It's not beneficial for them if Skripal stays alive. And this girl – she knows nothing. Skripal knows. She simply came to visit her father and got into this," Litvinenko said. "They'll let his daughter walk away, probably. But if she knows anything, she won't get out of it either." ..."
Fugitive Russians in the UK are effectively "hostages" of Western spy agencies, the father
of Alexander Litvinenko, an intelligence officer who was poisoned in London a decade ago, told
RT, sharing his insight on the Skripal case. Walter Litvinenko used to support the theory of
Russia's involvement in the 2006 poisoning of his son, Alexander, in London, but he changed his
mind after years of analyzing the inconsistencies of the investigation. London said that the
fugitive Russian intelligence officer was poisoned with a highly radioactive Polonium-210.
Despite an inconclusive investigation, it pinned the blame on Moscow, while the incident was
branded as the first ever act of "nuclear terrorism." Russia has vehemently denied the
allegations of its involvement in the incident. Read more UK may have staged Skripal
poisoning to rally people against Russia, Moscow believes
The poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury on
March 4, was, in turn, labeled"the first offensive use of a nerve agent
in Europe since World War II." While it bears similarities to the poisoning of Litvinenko,
it was handled with different tactics, Walter Litvinenko told RT.
Litvinenko senior says the poisoning of his son was designed as a widely-publicized
false-flag operation to show the world that Moscow was extremely "cruel," and the way
that it allegedly "deals with its enemies." The ongoing Skripal scandal, in its turn,
was launched to provoke a reaction from Russia, he believes.
"They realized that they have screwed up big time [with the Litvinenko poisoning] and
decided to change their tactics a bit. Therefore, they do not show [any evidence] now, but keep
it all in secret waiting for Russia to react to it. If there was, as they say, the 'Russian
trace' there, everything would have been clear long time ago," Litvinenko said.
He believes that, given the different goal, the ongoing investigation is significantly less
transparent than it was back in 2006, since it is easier to hide the truth from the beginning
than to try and swipe it under the rug afterward.
"It's the same with Sasha [Aleksandr], if there was the 'Russian trace,' it would emerge
over and over again up to this day. But the Scotland Yard was not looking for a criminal.
Scotland Yard was covering the tracks," Litvinenko stated. "Now they do not want to
show these tracks altogether, since they know they will have to cover them up the same way as
with Sasha."
The Skripal scandal would eventually backfire on those who initiated it, Litvinenko said.
"It will be very difficult to hide it all. And they will eventually fail. They will be
caught, and Theresa May will be very ashamed. And this clown, their Foreign Minister [Boris
Johnson] – he will be very ashamed too."
Devil's bargain
Litvinenko, who lost his son after the former officer of the Russian security service FSB
fled Russia for London and cooperated with MI6 and Spanish police, says people like Alexander
find themselves in a situation where they effectively become hostages of foreign governments
and intelligence agencies. He said it applies to both the rich and powerful who have left
Russia after having run-ins with the law, such as the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky, as well
as less prominent citizens such as Sergei Skripal.
"They are hostages, all of them are hostages of the American authorities, who strive for
the world dominance. As long as that's the case – they will kill the Russians, they'll
kill anybody who's against it," Litvinenko said. The wealthy Russians in the UK "are all
dependent on the authorities... They are being kept only for their money. And when something
happens, they will be blatantly robbed, like it happened to Berezovsky."
The fugitive oligarch, once one of the wealthiest Russians, was found dead at his home in
the UK in 2014. The investigation did not conclusively determine whether he hanged himself with
a scarf, or if he was strangled. Prior to his mysterious death, Berezovsky had lost most of his
assets and his wealth waned.
Given the previous suspicious deaths of Russian nationals on British soil, Skripal's fate
looks quite grim, Litvinenko believes. The daughter of the former double agent, Yulia, however,
might get out of this situation alive, as she was seemingly in the wrong place at the wrong
time. Assuming she was of no interest to the intelligence services, the recent reports on
Yulia's conditions improving do not look that "miraculous," Litvinenko said.
"It's not beneficial for them if Skripal stays alive. And this girl – she knows
nothing. Skripal knows. She simply came to visit her father and got into this," Litvinenko
said. "They'll let his daughter walk away, probably. But if she knows anything, she won't get
out of it either."
"... Issues of politicised intelligence are always matters of convenience for a particular state. The vision of a balanced intelligence officer conveying material to an obligingly balanced politician is one best done with. ..."
"... Veteran cynics of this are bound to point out that Russian surveillance of US citizens is less developed than Washington's own vast capacities, aided on by the not-so-humble types in Silicon Valley. As President George W. Bush erred with unintended accuracy, the enemies of the United States "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people -- and neither do we." ..."
"... Impairing Russia's intelligence gathering capacities is only going to be a temporary measure at best, a pruning of the tree rather than a savaging to its roots. "It is likely," suggests Alexey D. Muraviev, "they will restore their intelligence-gathering capacity very quickly." ..."
"... The latest staging of moral outrage is dangerous in one fundamental aspect. It is a show that diplomacy is being abandoned, adding more succour to the image of Russia as unrepentant villain and the West, more broadly described, as appropriately righteous. Such a stance ignores the more constructive role played by Moscow in security issues and debates, be it North Korea, Iran or anti-terrorist initiatives. The Kremlin, far from being discouraged in standing down, will undoubtedly do the reverse. Dogma and politics, for the moment, are in the ascendancy. ..."
How gloriously brave it seemed, some 23 nations coming together like a zombie collective to initiate a fairly ineffectual action
in of itself: the expulsion of Russian diplomats or, as they preferred to term it, intelligence operatives.
It all began in celebratory fashion in Britain, when Prime Minister Theresa May decided to push the issue with the expulsion of
23 in the wake of the poisonings of Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia, and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. Russia, in a reciprocal
effort, retorted in kind.
Since then, the number of states similarly inclined to reduce Russia's diplomatic set has grown.
This is a time for mania, and the Trump administration will not be far behind in participating in anything that reeks of it. From
the United States, 60 have been ordered to leave, including 12 at the United Nations. 16 EU countries and six non-EU members have
also joined in the fun.
Issues of politicised intelligence are always matters of convenience for a particular state. The vision of a balanced intelligence
officer conveying material to an obligingly balanced politician is one best done with.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a triumvirate of states from the Anglosphere who all, in parts, ignored, distorted, and manufactured
suitable "intelligence" in the name of eradicating weapons of mass destruction, attests to that need. Be wary of the misuse or use
of material concerned with chemical weapons or other such WMDs.
The latest expulsions have an air of rhythmic repetition. Even Seumas Milne, a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn of Britain's Labor
opposition, saw a troubling parallel. There is,
he noted , "a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly."
Never you mind that. UK foreign secretary
Boris Johnson deems "the smug, sarcastic response that we've heard from the Russians" as evidence of guilt, a distinctly low
threshold of evidentiary vigour. States are taking sides and
extolling the virtues of "international
rules" and "shared security".
For all that, China and India have stood back; certain European states refuse to follow suit, preferring caution. A club with
certain credentials for membership has formed, with sides being taken. All of this has taken place on faith.
Political advantage is already being claimed by May, suggesting that there is something far bigger than those poisonings that
took place in sleepy Salisbury. This is a government on life support barely holding the Brexit process together. A good show was
required, and May is delivering it. With implausible confidence, she has told parliamentarians that Russia's western spy network
had been "dismantled".
What Britain can do, the United States can do boisterously better, and Washington made a good fist of it by sending sixty Russian
diplomats packing. The Seattle consulate office would close. One administration official
suggested that the move was occasioned by "its proximity to one of our submarine bases and Boeing."
This adds to the emerging story of some grand ploy supposedly to impair Russian espionage capabilities, ostensibly to punish it
for using a nerve agent on British soil. The expulsions "make the United States safer by reducing Russia's ability to spy on Americans
and to conduct covert operations that threaten America's national security."
Veteran cynics of this are bound to point out that Russian surveillance of US citizens is less developed than Washington's
own vast capacities, aided on by the not-so-humble types in Silicon Valley. As President
George W. Bush erred with unintended accuracy, the enemies
of the United States "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people -- and neither do we."
Impairing Russia's intelligence gathering capacities is only going to be a temporary measure at best, a pruning of the tree
rather than a savaging to its roots. "It is likely,"
suggests Alexey D. Muraviev, "they will restore their intelligence-gathering capacity very quickly."
The spectacle of certain smaller powers, subservient to the Anglo-American line, has also become tediously predictable. Australian
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop took their spots on the pro-expulsion train. The number leaving
Canberra, two "undeclared intelligence officers," is unimpressive and tokenistic.
The joint statement by Turnbull
and Bishop is a point-by-point regurgitation of Johnson's presumptuous gruel. The decision "reflects the shocking nature of the attack
-- the first offensive use of chemical weapons in Europe since World War II, involving a highly lethal substance in a populated area,
endangering countless other members of the community."
The latest staging of moral outrage is dangerous in one fundamental aspect. It is a show that diplomacy is being abandoned,
adding more succour to the image of Russia as unrepentant villain and the West, more broadly described, as appropriately righteous.
Such a stance ignores the more constructive role played by Moscow in security issues and debates, be it North Korea, Iran or anti-terrorist
initiatives. The Kremlin, far from being discouraged in standing down, will undoubtedly do the reverse. Dogma and politics, for the
moment, are in the ascendancy.
"... "the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since World War II." ..."
"... "deals with its enemies." ..."
"... "They realized that they have screwed up big time [with the Litvinenko poisoning] and decided to change their tactics a bit. Therefore, they do not show [any evidence] now, but keep it all in secret waiting for Russia to react to it. If there was, as they say, the 'Russian trace' there, everything would have been clear long time ago," ..."
"... "It's the same with Sasha [Aleksandr], if there was the 'Russian trace,' it would emerge over and over again up to this day. But the Scotland Yard was not looking for a criminal. Scotland Yard was covering the tracks," ..."
"... "Now they do not want to show these tracks altogether, since they know they will have to cover them up the same way as with Sasha." ..."
"... "It will be very difficult to hide it all. And they will eventually fail. They will be caught, and Theresa May will be very ashamed. And this clown, their Foreign Minister [Boris Johnson] – he will be very ashamed too." ..."
"... "They are hostages, all of them are hostages of the American authorities, who strive for the world dominance. As long as that's the case – they will kill the Russians, they'll kill anybody who's against it," Litvinenko said. The wealthy Russians in the UK "are all dependent on the authorities... They are being kept only for their money. And when something happens, they will be blatantly robbed, like it happened to Berezovsky." ..."
"... "It's not beneficial for them if Skripal stays alive. And this girl – she knows nothing. Skripal knows. She simply came to visit her father and got into this," Litvinenko said. "They'll let his daughter walk away, probably. But if she knows anything, she won't get out of it either." ..."
Fugitive Russians in the UK are effectively "hostages" of Western spy agencies, the father
of Alexander Litvinenko, an intelligence officer who was poisoned in London a decade ago, told
RT, sharing his insight on the Skripal case. Walter Litvinenko used to support the theory of
Russia's involvement in the 2006 poisoning of his son, Alexander, in London, but he changed his
mind after years of analyzing the inconsistencies of the investigation. London said that the
fugitive Russian intelligence officer was poisoned with a highly radioactive Polonium-210.
Despite an inconclusive investigation, it pinned the blame on Moscow, while the incident was
branded as the first ever act of "nuclear terrorism." Russia has vehemently denied the
allegations of its involvement in the incident. Read more UK may have
staged Skripal poisoning to rally people against Russia, Moscow believes
The poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury on
March 4, was, in turn, labeled"the first offensive use of a nerve agent
in Europe since World War II." While it bears similarities to the poisoning of Litvinenko,
it was handled with different tactics, Walter Litvinenko told RT.
Litvinenko senior says the poisoning of his son was designed as a widely-publicized
false-flag operation to show the world that Moscow was extremely "cruel," and the way
that it allegedly "deals with its enemies." The ongoing Skripal scandal, in its turn,
was launched to provoke a reaction from Russia, he believes.
"They realized that they have screwed up big time [with the Litvinenko poisoning] and
decided to change their tactics a bit. Therefore, they do not show [any evidence] now, but keep
it all in secret waiting for Russia to react to it. If there was, as they say, the 'Russian
trace' there, everything would have been clear long time ago," Litvinenko said.
He believes that, given the different goal, the ongoing investigation is significantly less
transparent than it was back in 2006, since it is easier to hide the truth from the beginning
than to try and swipe it under the rug afterward.
"It's the same with Sasha [Aleksandr], if there was the 'Russian trace,' it would emerge
over and over again up to this day. But the Scotland Yard was not looking for a criminal.
Scotland Yard was covering the tracks," Litvinenko stated. "Now they do not want to
show these tracks altogether, since they know they will have to cover them up the same way as
with Sasha."
The Skripal scandal would eventually backfire on those who initiated it, Litvinenko said.
"It will be very difficult to hide it all. And they will eventually fail. They will be
caught, and Theresa May will be very ashamed. And this clown, their Foreign Minister [Boris
Johnson] – he will be very ashamed too."
Devil's bargain
Litvinenko, who lost his son after the former officer of the Russian security service FSB
fled Russia for London and cooperated with MI6 and Spanish police, says people like Alexander
find themselves in a situation where they effectively become hostages of foreign governments
and intelligence agencies. He said it applies to both the rich and powerful who have left
Russia after having run-ins with the law, such as the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky, as well
as less prominent citizens such as Sergei Skripal.
"They are hostages, all of them are hostages of the American authorities, who strive for
the world dominance. As long as that's the case – they will kill the Russians, they'll
kill anybody who's against it," Litvinenko said. The wealthy Russians in the UK "are all
dependent on the authorities... They are being kept only for their money. And when something
happens, they will be blatantly robbed, like it happened to Berezovsky."
The fugitive oligarch, once one of the wealthiest Russians, was found dead at his home in
the UK in 2014. The investigation did not conclusively determine whether he hanged himself with
a scarf, or if he was strangled. Prior to his mysterious death, Berezovsky had lost most of his
assets and his wealth waned.
Given the previous suspicious deaths of Russian nationals on British soil, Skripal's fate
looks quite grim, Litvinenko believes. The daughter of the former double agent, Yulia, however,
might get out of this situation alive, as she was seemingly in the wrong place at the wrong
time. Assuming she was of no interest to the intelligence services, the recent reports on
Yulia's conditions improving do not look that "miraculous," Litvinenko said.
"It's not beneficial for them if Skripal stays alive. And this girl – she knows
nothing. Skripal knows. She simply came to visit her father and got into this," Litvinenko
said. "They'll let his daughter walk away, probably. But if she knows anything, she won't get
out of it either."
40 Commando Royal Marines and The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) have staged the UK's biggest
annual exercise to prepare troops for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) operations.
Exercise TOXIC DAGGER is supported by Dstl, along with Public Health England (PHE) and The Atomic Weapons
Establishment (AWE), and is the largest exercise of its kind in the country.
Specialists in CBRN from Dstl
and AWE are able to create realistic exercise scenarios based on the latest threat information. Completing the
training and exercising against these scenarios provides a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to
demonstrate their proficiency in the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat.
The three-week programme included Company-level attacks and scenarios concerning CBRN vignettes, concluding
with a full-scale exercise involving government and industry scientists and more than 300 military personnel.
Major Rob Garside, from 40 Commando Royal Marines, said:
Working with Dstl means we have the most up-to-date information and a realistic
exercise. This ensures we are well prepared for a CBRN operating environment. It is vital we can make rapid
decisions and are able to protect and support specialists who come in to deal with any incident. On
operations these specialists are on hand to advise and we must ensure we already have a strong understanding
of their capabilities and what they require of us as a military force.
The Dstl lead for CBRN exercises said:
40 Commando would be first on the ground in the event of a CBRN incident. We ensure
they're up to date on the latest threats and make the exercise truly realistic. They not only have to
provide a fighting force in an unstable environment, they must also be able to assess the scene and know
what they're dealing with.
That's where Dstl, PHE, AWE and the Defence CBRN Centre come in, as we provide the
technical information the Marines require.
All this "door knob" hypothesis smells with MI5/MI6 falsification. An interesting note about stupid and evil presstitutes in
NYT, who bought it.
Notable quotes:
"... The Skripal attack was clearly a total cock-up but that didn't matter. All the UK/US wanted was an/any excuse to vilify Russia – no evidence required, it is all Kabuki. That is why the 5-eyes (excluding NZ) and Nato (excluding Turkey) fell in line with the recent expulsions – no evidence required. The whole point was to show Putin that 'the West' doesn't need evidence – the more ridiculous the better! Everyone knows that Russia didn't do it... but will kick Russia anyway, if it continues on its current path. ..."
"... As for the Skripal "script" and its timing, my speculation is that its purpose was to set the stage for a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Russia supported Damascus to sell an offensive from the southern flank by US forces in Jordan while missile strikes rained from the Eastern Med ..."
"... Graham: US leaving Syria would be 'single worst decision' Trump could make -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday cautioned President Trump against pulling American troops out of Syria, saying that doing so would be "a disaster in the making." ..."
"... Again the US has supported anti-government forces and invaded a foreign country, destroyed part of it while killing, injuring and displacing millions of people. The locals want the US out. Wouldn't we? ..."
"... NYT has a bombshell scoop! A material so poisonous that the Skripals have not died, and was spread by allegedly "[going] up to the front door" and smearing it on their outside door handle. This kind of stealth could only come from Russia and Putin... Bonus points attempted by doing a Nexis word search on what the CIA liars said regarding DNC emails.. ..."
"... So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing? . . here ..."
"... If the nerve agent is so potent per NYT description, how came the Skripals went to the pub and restaurant having beers and food with no signs of discomfort after having touched the nerve agent smeared on their house door? ..."
"... This is nerve agent not timebomb. Just how stupid can NYT let itself be? ..."
@Lozion, no. 31 What do you think of the veracity of the following comment recently posted
on Zero Hedge? Sorry, I have no links - just the comment:
'The UK's persecution of Russia arises from two unreported incidents in Syria during
operations in Eastern Ghouta. In late February, the SAA's special force unit trapped a group of
UK Special Forces in a siege, near Kafr Batna settlement. That incident occurred a few days
after another unit of UK Special Forces was captured near Nashabiyah!
London didn't want to deal with Assad and sought to negotiate their release with Russia,
with Oman as a mediator. Moscow replied that it was the jurisdiction of Syrian military
authorities. Mattis's visit to Oman on March 11 was to attempt to secure the release of a US
officer and two Israelis also captured in the same operation in Eastern Ghouta.
The UK and US governments (deep state?) see risks rising in Syria and since Russia refuses
to back down, pressure on other fronts had to be increased to raise the stakes for Moscow.
The Skripal attack was clearly a total cock-up but that didn't matter. All the UK/US
wanted was an/any excuse to vilify Russia – no evidence required, it is all Kabuki. That
is why the 5-eyes (excluding NZ) and Nato (excluding Turkey) fell in line with the recent
expulsions – no evidence required. The whole point was to show Putin that 'the West'
doesn't need evidence – the more ridiculous the better! Everyone knows that Russia didn't
do it... but will kick Russia anyway, if it continues on its current path.
Speculation: was the Skripal plan put together by the CIA (deep state) and MI6 (with UK
government support) behind Trump's back, which pretty much forced him to go along with the
expulsions etc., is that one of the reasons why he has now announced US troops will be leaving
Syria altogether?'
@33 miss lacy. Well, yes there have been reports of captured UK and other SF in East Ghouta
along with denials so its confusing. There most probably were a few caught but this is such a
delicate political matter that their release is I think negotiated in secret by the parties
involved. A grey area seems to exist around SF since no one wants to have theirs paraded as
war trophies, a tacit agreement of "dont ask, dont tell" is likely enforced.
As for the Skripal "script" and its timing, my speculation is that its purpose was to set
the stage for a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Russia supported Damascus to sell
an offensive from the southern flank by US forces in Jordan while missile strikes rained from
the Eastern Med but this was scraped in the nick of time due to the SAA's faster advance then
expected and capture of militants chemical labs, leaving the UK to deal with the mess created
by the failed op.
My opinion is that we went through a real CLOSE CALL around mid-March but
thanks to Gerasimov, Shoigu and Rudskoy multiple warnings and rapid pace of the EG operation,
we are still here to discuss it..
Graham: US leaving Syria would be 'single worst decision' Trump could make -- Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday cautioned President Trump against pulling American troops out of
Syria, saying that doing so would be "a disaster in the making."
Which means it's probably a good idea. The claim in Washington is that Obama made a
mistake in pulling troops out of Iraq. In fact, he had no choice because Bush-II had signed a
treaty (w/o Senate advice & consent) to pull out in December 2010. So it was done. Obama
had no choice.
Syria isn't the same, but it's similar. Again the US has supported anti-government forces
and invaded a foreign country, destroyed part of it while killing, injuring and displacing
millions of people. The locals want the US out. Wouldn't we?
I'm reminded of what Mike Hastie said. "One day while I was in a bunker in Vietnam, a
sniper round went over my head. The person who fired that weapon was not a terrorist, a
rebel, an extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual who tried to kill me
was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his country. This truth escapes millions."
--Mike Hastie, U.S. Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71
NYT has a bombshell scoop! A material so poisonous that the Skripals have not died, and was
spread by allegedly "[going] up to the front door" and smearing it on their outside door
handle. This kind of stealth could only come from Russia and Putin... Bonus points attempted
by doing a Nexis word search on what the CIA liars said regarding DNC emails..
"LONDON -- British officials investigating the poisoning of Sergei V. Skripal, a former
Russian double agent, believe it is likely that an assassin smeared a nerve agent on the door
handle at his home. This operation is seen as so risky and sensitive that it is unlikely to
have been undertaken without approval from the Kremlin, according to officials who have been
briefed on the early findings of the inquiry.
Because the nerve agent is so potent, the officials said, the task could have been carried
out only by trained professionals familiar with chemical weapons. British and American
officials are skeptical that independent actors could have carried out such a risky operation
or obtained the agent without approval at the highest levels of the Russian government --
almost exactly the same phrase that American intelligence agencies used in October 2016, when
they first attributed the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee to a team
of Russian hackers.
In her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018, the British Prime Minister,
Theresa May stated the following:
"It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade
nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents
known as 'Novichok '. Based on the positive identification of this chemical
agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton
Down" [my emphasis added].
In the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be
taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the court (Section 17 i)
stated the following:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings
indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound . The samples tested
positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent "
[my emphasis added].
So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a
Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it
was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the
same thing? . .
here
@37 ...re: door handle, grabbed by both father and daughter exiting the apartment
Novichok nerve agents . . .Within the environment, these agents react with water to
degrade, including moisture in the air, and so in the UK they would have a very limited
lifetime.
"Because the nerve agent is so potent, the officials said, the task could have been carried
out only by trained professionals familiar with chemical weapons. "
daffyDuct @37
------------------------------------------------- If the nerve agent is so potent per NYT description, how came the Skripals went to the pub
and restaurant having beers and food with no signs of discomfort after having touched the
nerve agent smeared on their house door?
This is nerve agent not timebomb. Just how stupid can NYT let itself be?
Russia's embassy in London has sent a list of questions, 14 to be specific, to the British Foreign
Ministry on the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal – which include a demand to clarify whether
samples of the nerve agent "Novichok" have ever been developed in the UK.
The Russian embassy's statement calls the incident that started the
recent diplomatic row
a "
fabricated case against Russia."
The
questions published
by the Russian Foreign Ministry's official website have been translated below:
Why has Russia been denied the right of consular access to the two Russian citizens, who came
to harm on British territory?
What specific antidotes and in what form were the victims injected with? How did such antidotes
come into the possession of British doctors at the scene of the incident?
On what grounds was France involved in technical cooperation in the investigation of the
incident, in which Russian citizens were injured?
Did the UK notify the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) of France's
involvement in the investigation of the Salisbury incident?
What does France have to do with the incident, involving two Russian citizens in the UK?
What rules of UK procedural legislation allow for the involvement of a foreign state in an
internal investigation?
What evidence was handed over to France to be studied and for the investigation to be
conducted?
Were the French experts present during the sampling of biomaterial from Sergey and Yulia
Skripal?
Was the study of biomaterials from Sergey and Yulia Skripal conducted by the French experts
and, if so, in which specific laboratories?
Does the UK have the materials involved in the investigation carried out by France?
Have the results of the French investigation been presented to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?
Based on what attributes was the alleged "Russian origin" of the substance used in Salisbury
established?
Does the UK have control samples of the chemical warfare agent, which British representatives
refer to as "Novichok"?
Have the samples of a chemical warfare agent of the same type as "Novichok" (in accordance to
British terminology) or its analogues been developed in the UK?
The Duran's Alexander Mercouris
added
some
necessary points to the growing mystery and confusion of the Skripal poisoning:
These theories have included claims that Sergey and Yulia Skripal were (1) sprayed with the
supposedly deadly chemical by a passer-by; (2) sprayed with the supposedly deadly chemical by an
aerial drone; (3) contaminated by the supposedly deadly chemical which was brought from Russia in
Yulia Skripal's suitcase where it had been hidden by some third party; and (4) were poisoned by
having the supposedly deadly chemical somehow inserted into Sergey Skripal's car.
The British and other critics of Russia have recently taken to citing as 'proof' of Russian
guilt the fact that the Russians have supposedly been proposing various theories about
who
might
have poisoned Sergey and Yulia Skripal.
The British – who unlike the Russians have control of the crime scene and samples of the poison
– have however been at least as busy proposing various theories about
how
Sergey
and Yulia Skripal were poisoned.
In both cases the fact that the Russian media and the British media – though not it should be
stressed the Russian or British governments – have been busy engaging in their respective
speculations about who who and how Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned is not proof of guilt.
Rather it suggests ignorance, which if anything (especially in Russia's case) is an
indicator of innocence.
As I have said on many occasions, it is the guilty who so far from engaging in a variety of
different speculations tend to come up with a single alternative narrative to explain away the
facts, which they then pass off as the truth in order to provide themselves with an alibi.
As to the present theory – that Sergey and Yulia Skripal came into contact with the chemical
agent on their front door – note the following:
(1)
The British police have not said whether the chemical agent was smeared on
the outside of the door or on the inside of the door.
If it was smeared on the outside of the door, then it was an extremely reckless act which might
have easily poisoned a delivery person to the house such as a postman.
If it was smeared on the inside of the door, then whilst it might have been placed there by a
burglar, the greater probability must be that it was placed there by a visitor.
If so then it is likely that either Sergey or Yulia Skripal or possibly both of them have some
knowledge of the identity of this person. That might make the fact that Yulia Skripal is said to
be recovering and is now conscious a matter of great importance for the solution of this mystery.
(2)
If Sergey and Yulia Skripal really were poisoned with the chemical agent by
coming into contact with it because it was smeared on their front door, then that would mean that
the chemical agent took 7 hours to take effect.
Russian ambassador to Britain Alexander Yakovenko has claimed that the British authorities have
told him that Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by nerve agent A-234, a Novichok type agent
which is supposedly "as toxic as VX, as resistant to treatment as soman, and more difficult to
detect and easier to manufacture than VX".
I am not a chemist or a chemical weapons expert, but such a slow acting poison seems at variance
with the descriptions of
A-234
and
VX
which
I have read.
(3)
The suggestion that Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by coming into
contact with the chemical agent on their front door must for the moment be treated as no more than
a theory. It does however appear to confirm the presence of the chemical agent in the house.
If the latest theory that Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by coming into contact with a
chemical agent smeared on their front door begs many questions, then the news that Yulia Skripal
is
apparently
recovering well
from the effect of her poisoning, and is now conscious and speaking and is no
longer in intensive care, though extremely welcome, in some ways adds further to the mystery.
even if the lies are proven, 90% of the
popualation won't see the proof...
And they know it.
Hell, first time they said "Russia" in the investigation, I knew it was
a hoax.
And then they started blasting Russia in every TV show, comedy show,
news... you name it.
They really really really want a war.
And if we don't have a WOIII in the next 10 years, the world population
will be to big to be fed. Yep, there's actually a timer that says there's
an endgame.
Yes these morons are playing with 7 billion lives and yes it is time to
pray,to pray for their demise ,but dont live in fear if your numbers up its up
dont let them manage you through fear.
The biggest problem the Russians have, and have had in a number of situations, is
that they present well formed arguments and questions that, unfortunately, require a
modicum of intelligence and effort to follow. The UK and US governments are simply
appealing to the lowest denominator with jingoistic, shallow, junk - as usual; but
it works!
How could the emergency doctors so quickly identify this as a particular chemical
agent and its source, when no Brit doctors have never seen such poison or its
effects? Who identified the agent so quickly?
I confess to an immediate bias in this matter. The entire charade has false flag
written all over it and has been obvious since a week after the incident.
What
interests me here is the insistence on the French involvement. I confess an
immediate bias against Macron, by the way.
Posted by: Babyl-on | Mar 31, 2018 9:23:43 AM |
12
@2-Gravatomic ---
The UK has been quite brazen about flaunting 500 years of jurisprudence (innocent until...)
and multiple international rules/laws and customs.
In my view this is Imperial behavior. The AngloZionist/Wahhabi Empire coming out into the
open. No need to bother hiding behind "democracy" any more no need to honor "the rule of law"
except to disgrace it.
Invasions and belligerence, aggression against all opponents - open demand for "Global full
spectrum domination." nothing will stand in the way - starve millions in Yemen so what its
nothing to the willingness to slaughter in the tens of millions to achieve regime change in
Moscow and Peking.
. .Eating in the restaurant might have brought the stuff into their system. 36,
39
from Scientific American
Nerve agents are bioavailable from the gut - that is, they can absorb into the body after
being eaten. That route of delivery isn't well studied, but is consistent with the slightly
slower onset of symptoms in Sergei and Julia Skripal. In comparison, nerve agents
administered via aerosol or spray are effective very quickly -- Kim Jong-Nam died shortly
after facial exposure to nerve agent VX in a Malaysian airport. . .
here
I wondered why the OPCW did not add "Novichok" because it never had been synthesized. Vil
himself said it was tested on dogs in Uzbekistan. This explains it.
So, why would the US and the UK not want the new guy on the block be known?
1998. I believe Vil Mirzayanov had come to the US before 1998.
"The fact is that back in 1998 when we looked through another version of the spectral
library, which was published by the National Bureau of Standards of the United States (NBS), we
found a substance there that we found interesting since it was an organophosphorus substance.
And we realized that it must have a strong lethal effect. Now it turns out that, judging by the
name of this substance, it was just the same nerve agent, A-234," Igor Rybalchenko said."
"The most interesting detail in this story is in the following versions of the database,
which usually only expand, they are constantly replenished, more and more substances, we did
not find this record. And I can't explain where is it now," the Russian military chemist
said."
1999. The US and Uzbekistan sign bilateral agreement:
"Earlier this year, the Pentagon informed Congress that it intends to spend up to $6 million
under its Cooperative Threat Reduction program to demilitarize the so-called Chemical Research
Institute, in Nukus, Uzbekistan. Soviet defectors and American officials say the Nukus plant
was the major research and testing site for a new class of secret, highly lethal chemical
weapons called ''Novichok,'' which in Russian means ''new guy."
Seems Vil gave the US the recipe and US forked out 6 million USD to get additional
intelligence. Then, radio silence.
+++
From the start, the Salisbury incident and the warnings by Russia over potential false flags
involving chemical weapons in East Ghouta seemed to be linked to me, like accusing your enemy
of what you yourself are doing; at the minimum, discredit Russia, at the maximum, be able to
claim Russia planted evidence.
So what threat is the US using that caused Macron to turn so quickly, Ecuador to suddenly
cut off all communication to Assange, European countries to expel Russian diplomats and a few
other things that has happened. Makes me wonder if the US neo-cons and the anglo elite are
about to go for broke. Perhaps try and pull a blatant coup in the US or start a major war or
both.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Mar 31, 2018 11:56:52 AM |
29
The US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals are doubling down into a much more dangerous stage
of confrontation with the coalescing multifarious East.
They thought that using nazis and fascists to take control of Ukraine would break Russia.
They thought that breaking apart Syria would open the way to Iran. They thought that
threatening to annihilate would break North Korea. They threaten China with trade wars. But
with each attack the East coalesces further and gains more strength.
The US led West is probing to find the weak link to break apart the East to thereby pick up
the pieces. The West projects its internal disintegration onto the rest of the world.
Some people in Washington adviced me not include Novichok formulas in my book State
Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program because they could
be used by terrorists. I'm explaning that this argument out of touch. Novichok chemical
agents cannot be produced by any terrorists because of insurmontable difficulties of their
production without highly educated personell, scientists and engineers. This argument is
prventing to put Novichok agents under the Control of Chemical Weapons Convention.
One reason for hushing up Mirzayanov's book is, as Russia has already noted, it provides a
blueprint for terrorists to design CW nerve agents--it abets terrorism--which is against the
law. And that begs the question, why hasn't Mirzayanov been arrested along with the
publisher? Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying USG was responsible for
financing the book's publication, but I can't find the link to that currently.
IMO, USG wanted no novichok sample in OPCW database as it wanted to use it without being
caught. IMO, Iran did its work as a result of the Zionist's murders of Iranian scientists.
The cables present an excellent example of the ways USG is able to frame issues in order to
cover up its international transgressions and illegalities--yet further proof as if more were
needed proving it most certainly is the Outlaw US Empire.
British did performed nasty experiments on humans involving sarin in the past
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever affected the Skripals initially could have been food poisoning or a reaction to having something put in their drinks. We do not know if the Skripals were acting on their own while visiting the cemetery, eating at Zizzi's Restaurant in Salisbury, having drinks at The Mill (or Mill's) and then walking to the park bench at Maltings shopping pall where they were later found unconscious. The fact that the table at Zizzi's where the two ate has been taken away and apparently is now incinerated should arouse suspicion. Suppose there was a third person at the table with them? ..."
"... As far as is known, skin contact with a nerve gas agent is just as deadly as ingesting it through the lungs. There is the case of a young RAF engineer, Ronald Maddison, who volunteered for a trial back in the 1950s conducted by British authorities at the Porton Down laboratory. He was told the trial was to test a flu vaccine. During the trial two drops of sarin were dropped onto his skin. He died nearly straight away. ..."
Simplest explanation may be that no nerve gas agent of any kind (Novichok or otherwise) was
used.
Whatever affected the Skripals initially could have been food poisoning or a reaction to
having something put in their drinks. We do not know if the Skripals were acting on their own
while visiting the cemetery, eating at Zizzi's Restaurant in Salisbury, having drinks at The
Mill (or Mill's) and then walking to the park bench at Maltings shopping pall where they were
later found unconscious. The fact that the table at Zizzi's where the two ate has been taken
away and apparently is now incinerated should arouse suspicion. Suppose there was a third
person at the table with them?
There is that photo (from a source which an Australian-based MoA commenter - BTW not me -
posits may be connected to Cambridge Analytica) of the Skripals which MoA put up on a recent
post, said photo having been taken on the day the Skripals were found poisoned. The photo shows
a reflection of someone in the mirror behind the Skripals with a camera.
After being hospitalised, the Skripals could have been kept under heavy sedation even after
the initial poisoning episode passed.
As far as is known, skin contact with a nerve gas agent is just as deadly as ingesting it
through the lungs. There is the case of a young RAF engineer, Ronald Maddison, who volunteered
for a trial back in the 1950s conducted by British authorities at the Porton Down laboratory.
He was told the trial was to test a flu vaccine. During the trial two drops of sarin were
dropped onto his skin. He died nearly straight away.
I should think if atropine is applied to the nervous system a week or two after the initial
exposure to complete the enzyme chain reactions that enable normal breathing, that's being a
bit tardy. The nerve gas works by disrupting the enzyme actions, causing muscles that control
breathing to remain contracted and in effect become paralysed. The person dies from
asphyxiation caused by this paralysis. That's my understanding anyway - I'm not a
physician.
Do we know who investigated the murder of said mobster and how it came in the open that it
was a 'novichok' class agent? Was it Russian authorities/police?
Yes, Russian state agencies investigated. Three agencies gave chemical analysis
evidence to the Kivelidi case: The Forensic Institute of the Russian Ministry of Internal
Affairs, The Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
and even the State Research Institute for Organic Chemistry & Technology itself (that is,
the body who the nerve agents' creators supposedly worked for). All agreed that the substance
uncovered in Kivelidi's phone was "a highly toxic organophosphate compound of a kind used in
the production of chemical weapons". As far as I can tell, though, only Mirzayanov categorised
the compound later as a "Novichok". The term didn't appear in the original case, I don't think.
It was, however, determined that the dose consisted of a 5mm droplet that worked immediately
and killed Kivelidi within a few days, and his secretary even sooner.
The theories of high-profile lawyer Boris Kuznetsov are interesting in this case. He
represented Khutsishvili, the man finally charged with Kivelidi and his secretary's murder (but
released early). Kuznetsov's principal idea seems to be that Leonard Rink was offered a deal by
the FSB. Rink is known only to have served a one year sentence for producing and selling nerve
agents on the black market (supposedly 8-9 ampules). He was used as evidence against
Khutsishvili, essentially incriminating himself as supplier of the nerve agent through an
intermediary, only for charges against him for other sales and trafficking of poisons to expire
years later without prosecution. Rink got off scot free in the end.
Kuznetsov, who has fled Russia (one of his highest profile cases was representing the
families of the submariners killed in the Kursk fiasco), reckons the true recipient of Rink's
leaked nerve agents were rogue FSB, with Khutsishvili the fall guy. An interesting minor
character in the Kivelidi case was Kivelidi's bodyguard - whose first day at work was the day
of his client's poisoning, and who quit the very next day. And who, Kuznetsov alleges, turned
out to be a former KGB officer in the same division as Lugovoi, the man later at the centre of
the Litvinenko poisoning case.
God only knows...
I've taken this information from several Kuznetsov interviews in the Russian press and a
review of the Kivelidi case court documents from Novaya Gazeta
(which describes at one point the period of onset for that category of poison as 0.5 to 5
hours).
Posted by: Crndbeef | Mar 31, 2018 6:00:26 PM |
77hojo , Mar 31, 2018 6:02:36 PM |
78
b@7 - The claim about the banker murdered with a novichok-like substance (which is what bjd@6
was asking about) is in the link you provided for the
Soviet scientist Vladimir Uglev , not in the link to the machine-translation of the
Leonid Rink interview.
Unfortunately all the article had to say about this was in the following paragraph (which
doesn't fully answer bjd's questions):
" One of these substances was used to poison the banker, Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary
in 1995. A cotton ball, soaked in this agent, was rubbed over the microphone in the handset
of Kivelidi's telephone. That specific dose was developed by my group, where we produced all
of the chemical agents, and each dose which we developed was given its own complete
physical-chemical passport. It was therefore not difficult to determine who had prepared that
dose and when it was developed. Naturally, the investigators also suspected me. I was
questioned several times about this incident. "
After keeping the chemicals developed in the soviet union buried for so long, to the
extent of ensuring OPCW did not look into or list it, why blow it just on the Skripals just
to kick a few diplomats out? The Skripal operation is more like an operation to get it in the
public eye and associated with Russia before the main event. I suspect the main event was
Ghouta and has been foiled, perhaps by discovering the chemicals or the sacking of Tillerson
or both.
This
short Twitter thread focuses on Uk's motive for attack on Skripals. East Ghouta's
liberation has seen the capture of several UK/NATO special ops personnel: "#UK's persecution
of Russia" has to do w/ serious, underreported development in #Syria that occurred shortly
before #Salisbury." A Russian analyst named Satanovsky is being cited; perhaps Yevgeny
Satanovsky of Moscow's Middle East Institute. The scenario's certainly plausible.
Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 30, 2018 8:58:44 PM |
180...
The vile Ruskies are capable of nefarious activities that cannot be proven using ordinary legal
standards, say, by finding a proof, but now NATO allies got wiser and decided to move forward
without falling for "Putin's trap", i.e. delaying any response until some proofs are found. No,
no, no! The very fact that nothing concrete can be found attests to the skill of perpetrator,
and the combination of (1) ability (2) motivation and (3) brutality leaves only one possible
culprit. ... Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 30, 2018 5:32:52 PM | 162
Yes! It's 911 all over again... Everyone was quick to forget that, despite the scale of the damage, 911 was simply a criminal
act and should have been the subject of a very thorough Police/judicial investigation with
unlimited power to subpoena witnesses and suspects - to seek incontrovertible
"evidence".
There is no doubt that this has been in the pipeline for quite a while & that it has gone tits up. Everything else is speculation, guess work and intuition.
It is such a tortured, black comedy, obviously poorly accepted by everyone except the US and UK, it cannot be taken seriously.
Which is also why it cannot be the prelude to a war with Russia and China. If this carnival of liars is deemed the causus belli of WWIII, it is a crude insult to every American sailor who was killed in service at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the last real causus belli.
I, for one, hope it is the absolutely necessary precursor to a military take-over of the US government by patriotic officers in the armed forces who are watching Mueller's investigation unfold who have heard all the lies told by the leaders of the FBI & CIA.
They are already aware of the corruption of the Members of Congress having seen how the procurement of weapon systems is based not on quality but on the location of military factories in their districts.
I believe the Deep State supports this coup d'etat as the only means of getting America back on sound financial footing in an age when the population explosion has just signaled the end of capitalism as we knew it in the last century and the end of enough easy to find and produce oil.
I also believe that the Arab Spring was the code name for the neocon's premeditated destruction of the Middle East, turning nations into piles of rubble for the express purpose of creating a tidal wave of refugees into the low birthrate nations of Eastern Europe, where their presence alone was sure to raise the GDPs of their new homes in OCEANIA.
Yes, I believe that the only alternative to WWIII is the gradual creation of Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR with US, UK & EU the core of Oceania.
OCEANIA -- the worst, most repressive of Orwell's three Super States.
nationofbloodthirstysheep | Mar 31, 2018 5:33:53 PM |
71
Maybe I'm technically off-topic in regard to today's MOA post, I tend to regard any MOA Skripal post to be part of a
continuing discussion.
It seems to me that what one might call "synchrony of affect" would be such an obvious contradiction to "doorknob" or
any other delayed reaction thesis that it would have been covered, and probably has been, by now somewhere in the
Skripal thread.
In case it hasn't, here's the obvious:
Apparently both Skripals were stricken almost simultaneously within a few minutes of appearing perfectly fine on CCTV.
The latest UK theory has it that they both touched a doorknob a number of hours earlier! a woman in her 30s and a man
twice her age both succumbed to a poison on that doorknob within a minute or two of each other - several hundred minutes
later!
Engineering a toxin capable of producing that effect must've been incredibly complex; probably the product of a
brilliant mind, Boris Johnson's perhaps.
My top three picks are 1: Bad clams in the Risotto 2: Aerosol in the face in front of the bench 3. All fake, staged
by the white helmets.
@71 That's a great point. Given their difference in weight, Sergei and Julia could not
have possibly collapsed in sync 7 hours after touching the door knob. The only
explanation for such a perfectly simultaneous onset of symptoms -- if they were poisoned at
all -- is something happening to them shortly before they collapsed.
The route for entering the body is of importance for the period required for the nerve
agent to start having effect. It also influences the symptoms developed and, to some
extent, the sequence of the different symptoms. Generally, the poisoning works faster when
the agent is absorbed through the respiratory system than via other routes. This is because
the lungs contain numerous blood vessels and the inhaled nerve agent can therefore rapidly
diffuse into the blood circulation and thus reach the target organs. Among these organs,
the respiratory system is one of the most important. If a person is exposed to a high
concentration of nerve agent, e.g., 200 mg sarin/m3 (see table) death may occur within a
couple of minutes.
Poisoning takes longer when the nerve agent enters the body through the skin. Nerve
agents are more or less fat-soluble and can penetrate the outer layers of the skin.
However, it takes some time before the poison reaches the deeper blood vessels.
Consequently, the first symptoms do not occur until 20-30 minutes after the initial
exposure but subsequently the poisoning process may be rapid if the total dose of nerve
agent is high. The toxic effect of nerve agents depends on them becoming bound to an
enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, and thereby inhibit this vital enzyme's normal biological
activity in the cholinergic nervous system.
karlofi1. I've read of captures/deaths of US/UK/Israeli Special Ops in Syria multiple times,
but never an "official" acknowledgement from any side. I expect at least some of these stories
are true, which tells me that no one is being completely honest publicly about what's going on
there.
Further down that Twitter feed you posted I saw this photo of The deadly doorknob dated 7
March.
The current state of anti-Russia hysteria is reminiscent of earlier dark chapters of
American history, including the rush to war in Iraq of the early 2000s and McCarthyism of the
1950s, Patrick Henningsen observes.
If there's one thing to be gleaned from the current atmosphere of anti-Russian hysteria in
the West, it's that the US-led sustained propaganda campaign is starting to pay dividends. It's
not only the hopeless political classes and media miscreants who believe that Russia is
hacking, meddling and poisoning our progressive democratic utopia – with many pinning
their political careers to this by now that's it's too late for them to turn
back.
As it was with Iraq in 2003, these dubious public figures require a degree of public support
for their policies, and unfortunately many people do believe in the grand Russian
conspiracy , having been sufficiently brow-beaten into submission by around-the-clock fear
mongering and official fake news disseminated by government and the mainstream media.
What makes this latest carnival of warmongering more frightening is that it proves that the
political and media classes never actually learned or internalized the basic lessons of
Iraq , namely that the cessation of diplomacy and the declarations of sanctions (a prelude
to war) against another sovereign state should not be based on half-baked intelligence and
mainstream fake news . But that's exactly what is happening with this latest Russian
'Novichok' plot.
Admittedly, the stakes are much higher this time around. The worst case scenario is
unthinkable, whereby the bad graces of men like John Bolton and other military zealots, there
may just be a thin enough mandate to short-sell another military conflagration or proxy war
– this time against another nuclear power and UN Security Council member.
Enter stage right, where US President Donald Trump announced this week that the US is moving
closer to war footing with Russia. It's not the first time Trump has made such a hasty move in
the absence any forensic evidence of a crime. Nowadays, hearsay, conjecture and social media
postings are enough to declare war. Remember last April with the alleged "Sarin Attack" in
Khan Sheikhoun , when the embattled President squeezed off 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles
against Syria – a decision, which as far as anyone can tell, was based solely on a few
YouTube videos uploaded by the illustrious
White Helmets . Back then Trump learned how an act of war against an existential enemy
could take the heat off at home and translate into a bounce in the polls. Even La
Résistance at CNN
were giddy with excitement and threw their support behind Trump, with some pundits describing
his decision to act as "presidential."
As with past high-profile western-led WMD allegations against governments in Syria and Iraq
(the US and UK are patently unconcerned with multiple allegations of
'rebel' terrorists in Syria caught using chemical weapons ), an identical progression of
events appears to be unfolding following the alleged 'Novichok' chemical weapon poisoning of
retired British-Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury,
Wiltshire on March 4.
Despite a lack of evidence presented to the public other than the surreptitious "highly
likely" assessments of British Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson,
President Trump once again has caved into pressure from Official Washington's anti-Russian
party line and ordered
the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats – whom he accused of being spies. Trump also
ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, citing speculative fears that Russia
might be spying on a nearby Boeing submarine development base. It was the second round of US
expulsions of Russian officials, with the first one ordered by the outgoing President Obama in
December 2016, kicking out 35 Russian diplomats and their families (including their head chef)
and closing the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, with some
calling it "a den of spies".
Trump's move followed an earlier UK action on March 14th, which expelled 23
Russian diplomats also accused of being spies. This was in retaliation for the alleged
poisoning of a retired former Russian-British double agent in Salisbury, England.
The 'Collective' Concern
It's important to understand how this week's brash move by Washington was coordinated in
advance. The US and the UK are relying on their other NATO partners, including Germany, Poland,
Italy, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Estonia and Lithuania – to create the
image of a united front against perceived 'Russian aggression.' As with multilateral military
operations, multilateral diplomatic measures like this are not carried out on a whim.
Aside from this, there are two seriously worrying aspects of this latest US-led multilateral
move against Russia. Firstly, this diplomatic offensive against Russia mirrors a NATO
collective defense action, and by doing so, it tacitly signals towards an invocation of Article
5. According to
AP , one German spokesperson called it a matter of 'solidarity' with the UK. Statements
from the White House are no less encouraging:
"The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies, and partners
around the world in response with Russia's use of a military grade chemical weapon on the soil
of the United Kingdom -- the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around
the world," the White House
said . "Today's actions make the United States safer by reducing Russia's ability to spy on
Americans, and to conduct covert operations that threaten America's national security."
What this statement indicates is that any Russian foreign official or overseas worker in the
West should be regarded as possible agents of espionage. In other words, the Cold War is now
officially back on.
Then came this statement: "With these steps, the United States and our allies and partners
make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences."
In an era of power politics, this language is anything but harmless. And while US and UK
politicians and media pundits seem to be treating it all as a school yard game at times, we
should all be reminded that his is how wars start.
The second issue with the Trump's diplomatic move against Russia is that it extends beyond
the territorial US – and into what should be regarded at the neutral zone of the United
Nations. As part of the group of 60 expulsions, the US has expelled 12 Russian diplomats from
the United Nations in New York City. While this may mean nothing to jumped-up political
appointees like Nikki Haley who
routinely threaten the UN when a UNGA vote doesn't go her way, this is an extremely
dangerous precedent because it means that the US has now created a diplomatic trap door where
legitimate international relations duties are being carelessly rebranded as espionage
– done on a whim and based on no actual evidence.
By using this tactic, the US is casting aside decades of international resolutions, treaties
and laws. Such a move directly threatens to undermine a fundamental principle of the United
Nations which is its diplomatic mission and the right for every sovereign nation to have
diplomatic representation. Without it, there is no UN forum and countries cannot talk through
their differences and negotiate peaceful settlements. This is why the UN was founded in the
first place. Someone might want to remind Nikki Haley of that.
On top of this, flippant US and UK officials are already crowing that Russia should be
kicked off the UN Security Council. In effect, Washington is trying to cut the legs out from a
fellow UN Security Council member and a nuclear power. This UNSC exclusion campaign been
gradually building up since 2014, where US officials have been repeated blocked by Russia over
incidents in
Syria and the Ukraine . Hence, Washington and its partners are frustrated with the UN
framework, and that's probably why they are so actively undermining it.
Those boisterous calls, as irrational and ill-informed as they might be, should be taken
seriously because as history shows, these signs are a prelude to war.
Also, consider the fact that both the US and Russia have military assets deployed in Syria.
How much of the Skripal case and the subsequent fall-out has to do with the fact that US
Coalition and Gulf state proxy terrorists have lost their hold over key areas in Syria? The
truly dangerous part of this equation is that the illegal military occupation by the US and its
NATO ally Turkey of northeastern Syria is in open violation of international law, and so
Washington and its media arms would like nothing more than to be history's actor and bury its
past indiscretions under a new layer of US-Russia tension in the Middle East.
Another WMD Debacle?
Is it really possible to push East-West relations over the edge on the basis of anecdotal
evidence?
Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig
Murray , highlighted the recent British
High Court judgement which states in writing that the government's own chemical weapons
experts from the Porton Down research facility could not categorically confirm that a Russian
'Novichok' nerve agent was actually used in the Salisbury incident. Based on this, Murray
believes that both British Prime Minster Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, and
Britain's deputy UN representative Jonathan Allen – have all lied to the public and the
world when making their public statements that the Russians had in fact launched a deadly
chemical weapons attack on UK soil. Murray states
elaborates on this key point:
"This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris
Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this
as a 'Novichok', as opposed to "a closely related agent". Even if it were a 'Novichok' that
would not prove manufacture in Russia , and a 'closely related agent' could be manufactured
by literally scores of state and non-state actors.
"This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying
– to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people
– about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack
originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As
the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local
elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased."
Murray has been roundly admonished by the UK establishment for his views, but he is still
correct to ask the question: how could UK government leaders have known 'who did it' in advance
of any criminal forensic investigation or substantive testing by Porton Down or an independent
forensic investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?
One would hope we could all agree that it's this sort of question which should have been
given more prominence in the run-up to the Iraq War. In matters of justice and jurisprudence,
that's a fundamental question and yet, once again – it has been completely bypassed.
Murray is not alone. A number of scientists and journalists have openly questioned the UK's
hyperbolic claims that Russia had ordered a 'chemical attack' on British soil. In her recent
report for the
New Scientist , author Debora MacKenzie reiterates the fact that several countries could
have manufactured a 'Novichok' class nerve agent and used it in the chemical attack on Russians
Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury.
The New Scientist also quotes Ralf Trapp, a chemical weapons consultant formerly with the
OPCW, who also reiterates a point worth reminding readers of – that inspectors are only
able to tell where molecules sampled in Salisbury have come from if they have reference samples
for the ingredients used.
"I doubt they have reference chemicals for forensic analysis related to Russian CW agents,"
says Trapp. "But if Russia has nothing to hide they may let inspectors in."
Even if they can identify it as Novichok, they cannot say that it came from Russia, or was
ordered by the Russian government, not least of all because the deadly recipe is available on Amazon for
only $28.45 .
It should be noted that a substantial amount of evidence points to only two countries who
are the most active in producing and testing biological and chemical weapons WMD – the
United States and Great Britain. Their
programs also include massive 'live testing' on both humans and animals with most of this
work undertaken at the Porton Down research facility located only minutes away from the scene
of this alleged 'chemical attack' in Salisbury, England.
Problems with the Official Story
If we put aside for the moment any official UK government theory, which is based on
speculation backed-up by a series of hyperbolic statements and proclamations of Russian guilt,
there are still many fundamental problems with the official story – maybe too many to
list here, but I will address what I believe are a few key items of interest.
The UK police have now released a statement claiming that the alleged 'Novichok' nerve agent
was somehow administered at
the front door of Sergie Skripal's home in Wiltshire. This latest official claim
effectively negates the previous official story because it means that the Skripals would have
been exposed a home at the latest around 13:00 GMT on March 4th, and then drove into town,
parking their car at Sainsbury's car park, then having a leisurely walk to have drinks at The
Mill Pub, before for ordering and eating lunch at Zizzis restaurant, and then finally leaving
the Zizzis and walking before finally retiring on a park bench – where emergency services
were apparently called at 16:15 GMT to report an incident.
Soon after, local police arrived on the scene to find the Skripals on the bench in an
"extremely serious condition." Based on this story, the Skripals would have been going about
their business for 3 hours before finally falling prey to the deadly WMD 'Novichok'. From this,
one would safely conclude that whatever has poisoned the pair was neither lethal nor
could it have been a military grade WMD. Even by subtracting the home doorway exposure leg of
this story, the government's claim hardly adds up – as even a minor amount of any real
lethal military grade WMD would have effected many more people along this timeline of events.
Based on what we know so far, it seems much more plausible that the pair would have been
poisoned at Zizzis restaurant, and not with a military grade nerve agent.
When this story initially broke, we were also told that the attending police officer who
first arrived on the scene of this incident, Wiltshire Police Detective Sgt. Nick Bailey
– was "fighting for his life" after being exposed to the supposed 'deadly Russian nerve
agent'. As it turned out, officer Bailey was treated in hospital and then discharged on March
22, 2018. To our knowledge, no information or photos of Bailey's time in care are available to
the public so we cannot know the trajectory of his health, or if he was even exposed to the
said "Novichok'.
In the immediate aftermath, the public were also told initially that approximately 4o people
were taken into medical care because of "poison exposure". This bogus claim was promulgated by
some mainstream media outlets, like Rupert Murdoch's
Times newspaper . In reality, no one showed signed of "chemical weapons" exposure, meaning
that this story was just another example of mainstream corporate media fake news designed to
stoke tension and fear in the public. We exposed this at the time on the UK Column News here:
To further complicate matters, this week we were told that Yulia Skripal has now turned the
corner and is in recovery, and is speaking to police from her hospital bed. If this is true,
then it further proves that whatever the alleged poison agent was which the Skripals were
exposed to – it was not a lethal, military grade nerve agent. If it had been, then most
likely the Skripals and many others would not be alive right now.
Unfortunately, in this new age of state secrecy, we can expect that most of the key
information relating to this case may be sealed indefinitely under a national security letter.
In the case of Porton Down scientist
David Kelly , the key information is sealed (hidden) for another 60+ years (if we're lucky,
we might get to see it in the year 2080). This means that we just have to take their word for
it, or to
borrow the words of the newly crowed UK Defence Secretary
Gavin Williamson – any one asking questions, "should just go away and shut up." Such
is the lack of decorum and transparency in this uncomfortably Orwellian atmosphere.
While Britain insists that it has 'irrefutable proof' that Russia launched a deadly
nerve-gas attack to murder the Skripals, the facts simply do not match-up to the rhetoric.
The Litvinenko Conspiracy
It's important to note that as far as public perceptions are concerned, the official Skripal
narrative has been built directly on top of the Litvinenko case.
In order to try and reinforce the government's speculative arguments, the UK establishment
has resurrected the trial-by-media case of another Russian defector, former FSB officer
Alexander Litvinenko, who is said to have died after being poisoned with radioactive
polonium-210 in his tea at a restaurant in London's Mayfair district in late 2006.
Despite not having any actual evidence as to who committed the crime, the British
authorities and the mainstream media have upheld an almost religious belief that the Russian
FSB (formerly KGB), under the command of Vladimir Putin, had ordered the alleged radioactive
poisoning of Litvinenko.
The media mythos was reinforced in 2016, when a British
Public Inquiry headed by Sir Robert Owen accused senior Russian officials of 'probably
having motives to approve the murder' of Litvinenko. Again, this level of guesswork and
speculation would never meet the standard of an actual forensic investigation worthy of a real
criminal court of law, but so far as apportioning blame to another nation or head of state is
concerned – it seems fair enough for British authorities.
Following the completion of the inquiry, Sir Robert had this to say: "Taking full account of
all the evidence and analysis available to me, I find that the FSB operation to kill Litvinenko
was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin."
Contrary to consensus reality (popular belief), Owen's inquiry was not at all definitive.
Quite the opposite in fact, and in many ways it mirrors how the Skripal case has been presented
to the public. Despite offering no evidence of any criminal guilt, Owen's star chamber
maintained that Vladimir Putin "probably" approved the operation to assassinate Litvinenko. Is
"probably" really enough to assign guilt in a major international crime? When it comes to high
crimes of state, the answer seems to be yes .
According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova , that UK
inquiry was "neither transparent nor public" and was "conducted mostly behind doors, with
classified documents and unnamed witnesses contributing to the result "
Zakharova highlighted the fact that two key witnesses in the case – Litvinenko's chief
patron, a UK-based anti-Putin defector billionaire oligarch named Boris Berezovsky, and the
owner of Itsu restaurant in London's Mayfair where the incident is said to have taken place,
had both suddenly died under dubious circumstances.
The British authorities went on to accuse two Russian men in the Litvineko murder –
businessman Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun. Both have denied the accusations. Despite the
lack of any real evidence, the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
blacklisted both Lugovoi and Kovtun, as well as Russian persons Stanislav Gordievsky, Gennady
Plaksin and Aleksandr I. Bastrykin – under
the Magnitsky Act ,
which freezes their assets held in American financial institutions, and bans them from
conducting any transactions or traveling to the United States.
Notice the familiar pattern: even if the case is inconclusive, or collapses due to a lack of
evidence, the policies remain in place.
Despite all the pomp and circumstance however, Owen's official conspiracy theory failed to
sway even Litvinenko's own close family members. While Litvinenko's widow
Marina maintains that it was definitely the Russian government who killed her husband,
Alexsander's younger brother Maksim Litvinenko, based in Rimini, Italy, believes the British
report "ridiculous" to blame the Kremlin for the murder of his brother,
stating that he believes British security services had more of a motive to carry out the
assassination.
"My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It's all a set-up
to put pressure on the Russian government," said Litvinenko to the Mirror newspaper, and that
such reasoning can explain why the UK waited almost 10 years to launch the inquiry his
brother's death.
Maxim also said that Britain had more reason to kill his brother than the Russians, and
believes that blaming Putin for the murder was part of a wider effort to smear Russia.
Following the police investigation, Alexander's father Walter Litvinenko, also
said that he had regretted blaming Putin and the Russian government for his son's death and
did so under intense pressure at the time.
For anyone skeptical of the official proclamations of the British state and the mainstream
media on the Litvinenko case, it's worth reading the work of British journalist Will Dunkerly
here .
With so many questions hanging over the actually validity of the British state's accusations
against Russia, it's somewhat puzzling that British police would say they are still 'looking
for similarities' between the Skripal and Litvinenko cases in order to pinpoint a modus
operandi.
The admission by the British law enforcement that their investigation
may take months before any conclusion can be drawn also begs the question: how could May
have been so certain so quick? The answer should be clear by now: she could not have known it
was a 'Novichok' agent, no more than she could know the 'Russia did it.'
A Plastic Cold War
Historically speaking, in the absence of any real mandate or moral authority, governments
suffering from an identity crisis, or a crisis of legitimacy will often try and define
themselves not based on what they stand for, but rather what (or who) they are in opposition
to. This profile suits both the US and UK perfectly at the moment.
Both governments are limping along with barely a mandate, and have orchestrated two of the
worst and most hypocritical debacles in history with their illegal wars in both Syria and
Yemen. With their moral high-ground a thing of the past, these two countries require a common
existential enemy in order to give their international order legitimacy. The cheapest, easiest
option is to reinvigorate a framework which was already there, which is the Cold War framework:
Reds under the bed. The Russian are coming, etc.
It's cheap and it's easy because it has already been seeded with 70 years of Cold War
propaganda and institutionalized racism in the West directed against Russians. If you don't
believe me, just go look at some of the posters, watch the TV propaganda in the US, or read
about the horrific McCarthyist blacklists and political witch hunts. I remember growing up in
America and being taught "never again" and "we're past all of that now, those days of
irrational paranoia are behind us, we're better than that now." But that madness of the past
was not a fringe affair – it was a mainstream madness, and one which was
actively promoted by government and mainstream media.
You would have to be at the pinnacle of ignorance to deny that this is exactly what we are
seeing today, albeit a more plastic version, but just as immoral and dangerous. Neocons love
it, and now liberals love it too.
Dutifully fanning the flaming of war, Theresa May has issued her approval of the NATO
members diplomatic retaliation this week exclaiming, "We welcome today's actions by our allies,
which clearly demonstrate that we all stand shoulder to shoulder in sending the strongest
signal to Russia that it cannot continue to flout international law."
But from an international law perspective, can May's
'highly likely' assurances really be enough to position the west on war footing with Russia?
When Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked these same fundamental questions on March 14th, he was
shouted down by the Tory bench, and also by the hawkish Blairites sitting behind him.
Afterwards, the British mainstream press launched yet another defamation campaign against
Corbyn, this time
with the UK's Daily Mail calling the opposition leader a "Kremlin Stooge", followed by
British state broadcaster the BBC who went through the effort of creating a mock-up graphic of
Corbyn in front of the Kremlin (pictured above) apparently wearing a Russian hat, as if to
say he was a Russian agent . It was a new low point in UK politics and media.
Considering the mainstream media's Corbyn smear alongside the recent insults hurled at Julian
Assange by Tory MP Sir Alan Duncan who stood up in front of Parliament and called the
Wikileaks founder a "miserable worm", what this really says is that anyone who dares defy the
official state narrative will be beaten down and publicly humiliated. In other words, dissent
in the political ranks will not be tolerated. It's almost as if we are approaching a one party
state.
Would a UN Security Council member and nuclear power really be so brazen as to declare
de facto war on another country without presenting any actual evidence or completing a
genuine forensic investigation?
So why the apparent rush to war? Haven't we been here before, in 2003? Will the people of
the West allow it to happen again?
As with T2ony Blair's WMD's in 2003, the British public are meant to take it on faith and
never question the official government line. And just like in 2003, the UK has opened the first
door on the garden path, with the US and its 'coalition' following safely behind, shoulder
to shoulder. In this latest version of the story, Tony Blair is being played by Theresa
May, and Jack Straw is being played by Boris Johnson.
On the other side of the pond, a hapless Bush is hapless Trump. Both Blair and Straw, along
with the court propagandist Alastair Campbell – are all proven to have been liars of the
highest order, and if there were any real accountability or justice, these men and their
collaborators in government should be in prison right now. The fact they aren't is why the door
has been left wide open for the exact same scam to be repeated again, and again.
Iraq should have taught us all to be skeptical about official claims of chemical weapons
evidence, and to face the ugly truth about how
most major wars throughout history have waged by the deception – and by western
governments. What does it tell us about today's society if people still cannot see this?
That's why it was wrong to let Blair, Bush and others off the hook for war crimes. By doing
so, both the British and Americans are inviting a dark phase of history to repeat itself again,
and again.
It's high time that we break the cycle.
Author Patrick Henningsen is a global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and
analysis site 21st Century Wire, and host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally
over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).
Trump is a businessman, and the biggest and most profitable business is a military
spending. PR and advertising campaigns (like Salisbury ) are just a part of the game to keep
wheels moving.
Leo , March 31, 2018 at 9:15 pm
One more note. At first I was puzzled by the stupidity of those who produced this cheap
B-movie scenario of this Skipal show. Now I must admit that they are much smarter than I
previously thought. As Joseph Goebbels said, the more unbelievable lie the easier to make
people believe in it. And that is very simple to explain. Those who would try to analyse the
unanalysable will not be able to come to a definite conclusion and there will be always a
room for a doubt. Good job!
Abby , April 1, 2018 at 1:01 am
Moon of Alabama has been covering this and the latest post shows that this was planned as
far back as 2009. Hillary is involved with this and while she was SOS she told her staff not
discuss the book that had the information on how to make the poison. This is a little
convenient, don't you think?
Good grief, there are so many holes in this story that I'm just frankly dumbfounded that
people can't see through them. The timeline of where they got poisoned and then the number of
people who had been exposed to it kept going up.
geeyp , April 1, 2018 at 3:03 am
To Stephen J. Gray: I agree with you 200%, and have said the exact same thing for years
now. What a let down when the last President declared justice was off limits for these
scoundrels! How the world could look now if justice was served then! Patrick J. Henningsen's
piece here and his site 21st Century Wire, along with working with Vanessa and Eva, fill us
in on what has transpired in Syria more than any other place, and I am pleased to see him
represented here. I also love seeing him on "Crosstalk" on RT.
The current crop of "leaders" in the UK share the same trait -- the complete lack of
dignity. It seems that immorality has become a prerequisite for entering the UK politics.
Guess, The Friends of Israel have succeeded in educating Brits in accordance with Mossad'
ethics, "By way of deception thou shalt do war."
Realist , March 31, 2018 at 4:51 pm
There is always reality and, offered in its place, the risible Washington narrative.
Clearly, the world knows the difference just about every time, yet the world hegemon and its
NATO vassals insist on the preposterous mythology and most of the rest go along out of fear.
It's a frustrating trap that honest and rational people everywhere are forced to accept,
unless they want to war in one form or another with the great bully. You go along with the
Red Queen's six impossible things imagined before breakfast or it's off with your head!
We know the identities of the figureheads in whose name these outrages are
promulgated–moral sell-outs for political grandeur like D.J. Trump, Nikki Haley and now
John Bolton. What piques my curiosity would be the names of those powers lurking in the
shadows who pull the strings of these figureheads. Who are the psychopaths that have been
firmly directing Washington's endless wars with no deviation in their prosecution regardless
of campaign promises, elections and warm bodies occupying offices? Who are the monsters that
have put us on a certain collision course for nuclear war with Russia ginned up with an
un-ending litany of lies, frame-ups, false narratives and aggressive military moves? Would it
be people we've heard about? Is Sheldon Adelson essentially the defacto czar of the "Western
alliance?" Or is he also only a front for truly Deep Slimeballs pulling the strings at the
depths of the Deep State?
If the pope's pronouncements on hell, which presently has some prominent Catholics
disconcerted that pain and suffering forever and ever without end is not a reasonable
position for an all-knowing and all-loving diety to take, is the likely truth then, for many
unfortunates, hell actually ends when their stay on earth is terminated courtesy of the
blood-thirsty Washington maniacs who play god.
Sam F , April 1, 2018 at 8:17 am
Yes, the ultimate influencers are the great question. Those who follow the money and
follow the motive find the nature of oligarchy and its factions, if not its commanders. Our
tyranny is a subculture of bullies using all available forms of power: direct force, economic
power, social, and information power, and in all modes of bribery, threat, and deception. We
owe everything to our gangsters.
Abe , March 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
"The fact that the alleged creator of Novichok agents – Vil Mirzayanov – fled
to and currently lives in the United States suggests the West has both knowledge of and the
means to create Novichok agents themselves.
"The UK's presumption that "only Russia" could have produced the agents when the creator
of Novichok lives in the United States – and British labs clearly have access to the
poison – is at face value contradictory and dishonest.
"Since the UK has refused to produce any tangible evidence, including producing samples
under its obligations to the Chemical Weapons Convention, all that is left for the
international community to consider is the source of these accusations. [ ]
"Just as the US and UK did during the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, an avalanche of
propaganda is being produced to stampede the world into backing whatever long-ago elected
course of action the West has decided to take against Russia.
"In the hindsight of whatever course of action the UK and its allies decide to take in the
coming days, weeks, and months based on the Skripal incident, who will play the role of
'Curveball' who supposedly duped Theresa May in making her Powell-style accusations before
declaring her Bush-style retaliation?
"And considering the ramifications for the West regarding its lies in the lead up to Iraq
and the fallout the West has faced in the aftermath of Iraq's destruction, what do Western
policymakers expect to gain from an incident many times more transparently staged and
self-serving against a world increasingly skeptical of their claims and actions?"
"The fact that the alleged creator of Novichok agents – Vil Mirzayanov – fled
to and currently lives in the United States suggests the West has both knowledge of and the
means to create Novichok agents themselves." very significant fact .if it was reported
before, it flew right by me, although I was aware that Western "scientists" took samples of
the Aral Sea stockpile during Yeltsin's chaotic administration.
Fred , March 31, 2018 at 7:08 pm
Here's a link to Moonof Alabama discussing Soviet defector Vil Mirzanyanov who wrote a
book about his chemical work for the USSR; he now lives in Princeton, NJ.
Thanks Fred, the Zakharova interview was particularly revealing considering that the
"Russian sounding" name "Novichok" was invented by Western sources, the Tory claim reeks of
tampering with the facts. It reminds me of the sloppy "Steele investigation" into alleged
Russian hacking where a trail of Russian "clues" seemed to be inserted by Christopher Steel's
Fusion GPS. The fact that Steele himself is linked to both MI-6 and the DNC effort to hang
Hillary's election loss on Putin should shift all suspicion onto the accusers, but.alas, the
msm is not in the business of informing the public.
Abby , April 1, 2018 at 1:02 am
Moon of Alabama has updated the information on this and links it to Hillary. Gee, what a
surprise, ehh?
Thanks Kathryn, both the article and the comment thread raise a lot of questions(the
thread never ends). Many of the comments seem to be from people with considerable knowledge
of the chemical composition and its possible effects,
Curious , March 31, 2018 at 9:01 pm
As the article states above, the book and recipe re: Vil Mirzayanov can be bought on
Amazon for $28.45. This information has certainly been known by chemists worldwide.
Zachary Smith , March 31, 2018 at 5:32 pm
The UK police have now released a statement claiming that the alleged 'Novichok' nerve
agent was somehow administered at the front door of Sergie Skripal's home in Wiltshire.
This latest official claim effectively negates the previous official story because it means
that the Skripals would have been exposed a home at the latest around 13:00 GMT on March
4th, and then drove into town, parking their car at Sainsbury's car park, then having a
leisurely walk to have drinks at The Mill Pub, before for ordering and eating lunch at
Zizzis restaurant, and then finally leaving the Zizzis and walking before finally retiring
on a park bench – where emergency services were apparently called at 16:15 GMT to
report an incident.
This is the material for a badly written cheap novel, yet the Brits have been pushing it
and their Allies have been pretending to believe it. WHY is the big question I'd like to have
answered. There were dozens of ways the Skripals could have been quietly murdered, yet
somebody decided to use a method designed to gain maximum publicity.
In order to try and reinforce the government's speculative arguments, the UK
establishment has resurrected the trial-by-media case of another Russian defector, former
FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who is said to have died after being poisoned with
radioactive polonium-210 in his tea at a restaurant in London's Mayfair district in late
2006.
Given a high probability Israel murdered Arafat with Polonium two years earlier, it was
just naturally the turn of the Russians to be the villains. Likely blame was assigned by the
Brits using the same method as now – Write the names of all the possible nations who
could have done the deed on large pieces of paper. Tape the ones with "Russia" on the south
side of a room, and those with all the other suspects on the north side. Make sure your
blindfolded dart thrower is pointed south, and you've solved the mysteries of the two deadly
poisons.
Maxim Litvinenko's opinion on his brother's poisoning and his father's regretting being
coerced by British authorities into believing his son was targeted by Putin add a
particularly relevant wrench into the Tory narrative. Thank you, Patrick Hennigsen, for some
very trenchant insights into the web of intrigue.
mrtmbrnmn , March 31, 2018 at 6:52 pm
Vietnam: The Gulf of Tonkin Attack of the Radar Blips (Hanoi Bridge For Sale Cheap!) Gulf
War I (Kuwaiti babies pitched out of incubators), Iraq War: Saddam Has WMDs! (Baghdad Bridge
For Sale Cheap!), Putin Invades Crimea (Kiev Bridge For Sale Cheap!) Syrian Sarin Gas Attacks
(White Helmet videos at 11), Putin Novichoks Ex-Russian Spy (double agent) & daughter in
Salisbury UK (Theresa May: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes") And, of course, now
and forever, Trump = Putin. The hits just keep coming. Shades of the Reichstag Fire and
Poland Invades Germany. Rogue Nation USA and its pusillanimous NATO "partners" continuously
spew out lies to their ever-gullible Gen Pop, because it works! Again and again and
again.
Jeff , March 31, 2018 at 7:24 pm
Where, pray tell, is the UN in all this? The United States has been fomenting coups and
"regime changes" for decades. The UN should be standing up and calling the US out instead of
supinely agreeing to eject 10 Russian delegates to the UN.
geeyp , April 1, 2018 at 3:18 am
Jeff: Agreed. The UN has lost the plot for some time now. Their mission was peace
originally, and the US can't have that. Nicki Hoeky is clueless and is not doing a damn thing
to help us.
Dave P. , March 31, 2018 at 8:29 pm
"By using this tactic, the US is casting aside decades of international resolutions,
treaties and laws. Such a move directly threatens to undermine a fundamental principle of the
United Nations which is its diplomatic mission and the right for every sovereign nation to
have diplomatic representation. Without it, there is no UN forum and countries cannot talk
through their differences and negotiate peaceful settlements. This is why the UN was founded
in the first place. Someone might want to remind Nikki Haley of that."
Reminding Nikki Haley would not make any difference. Nikki Haley does not have the
intelligence, knowledge, character or any capacity for deep thinking. Nor does his boss
possess much of it. John Bolton has no regard for U.N., and is completely devoid of any
humanitarian impulses. He is as close as it could be of being considered as a complete
barbarian. There is Mike Pompeo there sitting at the table. You know how he is like. So,
there you have it.
And there is nothing to cheer about across the Atlantic. Theresa may, Boris Johnson, Gavin
Williamson . . . It is as bad as it gets. Merkel, Macron, Stoltenberg, and the rest of the
Flock in those Vassal States follow the orders.
As Henneningsen points out in the article, this latest provocation by The West, in all
probability this staged event at Salisbury, is indeed very dangerous. World may be edging
towards a nuclear war. There are no sane voices left in the Ruling Establishments in The
West.
Joe Tedesky , April 1, 2018 at 1:26 am
Dave I agree. In fact Dave, if you were the international war criminals of all time then
wouldn't it be wise to destroy the very fabric of what stands for international justice? It's
either the UN, or NATO, and in this case it's destroy the UN in order to drag down more
allied nations into this carnival of destruction under the banner of NATO. So I agree Dave,
it isn't to how it appears that TPTB want to bring the UN down, as it is that the TPTB are
taking the UN down as we speak of this heavy conundrum being laid before us. Believe it not,
in Sheldon's eyes Nikki is doing a fantastic job of it.
We are going to war Dave. We are fast moving towards that place where the closer we get to
war that the more criticism of war will be deemed traitorous. Starting to paying attention
will have a whole new meaning. Joe
Dave P. , April 1, 2018 at 3:02 am
Joe, yes, you are right on that; they are taking the UN down as we speak . Under Bush,
when Bolton was at UN, they were talking about dissolving the UN. Immediately after this
staged event in Salisbury, the British politicians were talking about kicking Russia out of
UN Security Council. It all seems preplanned.
Russia is the biggest country in the World, its population is more than twice that of U.K.
and also of France. Its GDP (in PPP) is one and one half times of U.K's. And most of the
U.K.'s economy is Finance and Tourism, and London being the World Center of money laundering,
and residence of all these oligarchs/financial crooks, and Corrupt Elite from all over the
third world countries; you name it all this ill gotten wealth is pouring into London. It is
amazing that the Ruling Elite in U.K. are talking as if they are still in the nineteenth or
early twentieth century – ruling over a good portion of the World. It seems to me that
if the shooting starts, U.K's paper economy is going to crumble.
Unfortunately, there is not much out there to hope for. They – The West – are
going not only to take the UN down, but take the World down with it into some type of dark
ages again.
mike k , March 31, 2018 at 8:47 pm
Nothing new to readers here, but of course it's all true. The Empire seeks more war.
Has it ever been otherwise?
mike k , March 31, 2018 at 9:20 pm
Politicians and the media are not there to learn anything but how to make money and gain
more power through the corrupt, lying games they play. They all made money off the Iraq war,
and that is all they care about, period.
Syd , March 31, 2018 at 9:34 pm
Don't the Brits realize that if there's any kind of shooting war with Russia, and any
Russian city is attacked,that the Russians can and will bomb British cities to retaliate, not
to mention the resulting ecalation,almost certainly up to nuclear? Why aren't a million Brits
on the streets demanding peaceful resolution of this and future crises?
jose , March 31, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Dear Sad: your question may sound simple but it is a complex one;It involves numerous
factors interwoven that create the right conditions for war. I think that Brits are not on
the streets might be due to apathy, ignorance, disinterest, or sheer historical amnesia.
According to Richard Sanders, "The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked
people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history
to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives
and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our
society's susceptibility to "war fever."
jose , March 31, 2018 at 9:43 pm
I believe that these war mongers cannot help themselves when it comes to lying and
deceiving their own people to promote war. Consequently, it is up to the people to put a stop
to their nefarious ambitions; According to Richard Sanders, "Military plotters know that the
majority would never support their wars, if it were generally known why they were really
being fought
If asked to support a war so a small, wealthy elite could shamelessly profit by ruthlessly
exploiting and plundering the natural and human resources in far away lands, people would
'just say no.'" If people chose to be spectators rather than participants into their own
affairs, then they deserve what is coming to them. It is simple math.
Skeptigal , March 31, 2018 at 10:14 pm
An excellent analysis, I always enjoy reading your articles, thank you.
The perpetrators do not care whether the allegations can be supported by evidence or if
the science makes sense or if there's a logical motive. All that's important is that the
damage is done and the endgame achieved. The attack has to be blatant to ensure attention is
focused on it and fingers are pointed in the right direction. Government officials can always
rely on the MSM and the brain dead public to support them. People are easily propagandized. A
video on propaganda by Dr. Jerry Kroth on 21st Century Wire is well worth watching. Whoever
is behind the incident get away with it because they feel they are above all laws.
In the Skripal case, once again all the mindless sheeple have the wool pulled over their
eyes, while bleating their approval of the excessive measures taken by the UK and allies that
are disproportionate to the crime. Not long ago, our local TV station had an online poll
asking people if they agree with expelling the Russian diplomats and 81% replied "yes". Many
of the comments on the MSM sites are very negative toward Russia over this incident.
History will repeat itself again and again, a long as anyone questioning the official
narrative is attacked and discredited, people are fed propaganda, media is censored, and the
laws and justice system fail again and again.
Abby , April 1, 2018 at 12:54 am
Will the people of the USA believe another WMDs lie? Of course they will. They have been
doing it since Herheinous lost the election. They are believing that because she lost. Can
anyone imagine what they would say if it was Trump throwing out these ridiculous lies? They'd
say that he is nuts for even thinking it.
The PTB knew that people would never believe another WMDs type story so they came at
people with this softer WMDs type propaganda and lo and behold they are buying it. SMDH!
jimbo , April 1, 2018 at 2:36 am
"carnival of warmongering"
A better title IMO.
I chat online and hang out here in Japan with a number Brits and North Americans and they
don't seem to care or scoff at my thoughts which wholeheartedly go along with Patrick's,
(whom, along with the UK Column team, have podcasts which I never miss.) It seems people have
shut off their critical thinking abilities and when I pipe up with my line about how a huge
psy-op is being played on us by our own governments (which admittedly to a "normy" does sound
whacky), after the scoffing and incredulousness at how evil Russia could possibly be
innocent, they will end the discussion with a sure fire discussion ender: they don't give a
shit. I am truly privileged to be alive in this amazing present with the greatest toys and
gizmos ever invented and yet there's Trump and May and my "friends" pissing in my sandbox.
WTF??? How can the words and deeds my heroes like John Lennon and MLK be suddenly wrong?
Maybe we should all stop giving a shit about this crap. My mother, a firebrand back in the
day, is blissfully unaware of anything due to Alzheimer's and she's fine! But Mom wouldn't
have scoffed. I'd have had a loving fellow traveler had she not been stricken. Maybe the most
irksome thing is how people are profiting off these lies and dangerous provocations.
Conspiracy theory skeptics always say that someone would have talked. That this crap is
happening under our noses with only some outlets of the alternative media "saying something"
still it goes on and maybe only a war will shake them hard enough to be "woke." Or not. One
thing is how much fun the alternative side is. I used to like to read "Consumer Reports" and
loved how they got away with ripping apart cars that real companies surely sweated bullets to
make. I also liked the way they lauded some products. Nowadays, CR would be a sometimes right
but still fake consensus driver like "Snopes" or "Vice News." While I'm rambling, a shout out
to James Corbett. You have got to see his dissection of the Sibel Edmunds Twitter melt
down.
geeyp , April 1, 2018 at 3:49 am
Yes, I agree with you. I quit paying attention long ago (approximately 12 years ago) to
the msm, of whom I used to work with. The most useful thing for me is to not give a shit what
they do. It seems to help; I don't have the funding to fight them, though I can counter
anyone who might defend them. You mentioned "Consumer Reports" and fake news, refresh my
memory, were they also along with either "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics" agreeing
with the NIST lie that fires destroyed the three towers?
Emmet Sweeney , April 1, 2018 at 3:22 am
The political class in America and UK do what their Zionist paymasters tell them. They're
not stupid, they know perfectly well Russia had nothing to do with this.
LookHow , April 1, 2018 at 5:42 am
We have to stop putting the blame on our politicians and take responsibility as a people.
It is clear that our elected officials serve somebody else's agenda so we have to change the
system. We need to create a democracy where decisions such as diplomatic relations, is voted
upon by the people. A more direct democracy is possible today and we need it.
Don't believe in mass insanity? You should. We all should. Even considering the most
dastardly murder of someone, what type of reasoning would lead us to risk the murder of
thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions. We have to acknowledge that it is not about
them, it is about us, that we are willingly being led toward the precipice and feeling self
righteous in doing so.
These politicos didn't care to learn any lessons from Iraq! They will lie about anything
to retain power. Their 'overlords' who control them pull their marionette strings.
At "The Duran" website Alexander Mercouris has a piece titled "Furious China Ramps Up
Support for Russia on Skripal, Calls West's Actions 'Outrageous' ". The Global Times, English
language organ of China's ruling Communist Party, published a scorching op-ed and 13
paragraphs are printed in Mercouris' piece. It is well worth reading, as is The Duran a good
site to know of. Some very powerful points are made in the piece, please read it.
Not even mentioned in that piece is that China has just launched the petroyuan as exchange
for oil purchase, and Russia is their largest supplier of oil. Other countries that are sick
of Western bullying are also attempting to get off the dollar and China has leverage to aid
them. So does Russia, which has no debt. The US as a debtor nation relies only on its guns to
maintain dominance. The West is a 'beast' lashing out to keep control.
This is a hypotheses about why he will not die and how he can be used after magical
resurrection. just a hypotheses.
I think the most close analogy is Stormy Daniels case Trump bullied by the prostitute with
whom long ago he had a fling and now she's suing him on the issue of contract what was signed
by her to keep her silent.
So she took money from him for silence, then and now she did not return the money and freely
slings mud. Since the civil suit it can last years and years this is a defamation by any other
name. And one tells the stripper (her current occupation after glorious porno star career) got
so much many to her lawyers! And with around 300 dollars per hour, even the cheapest lawyer
costs substantial sum for piece of paper he produces and each court meeting he attends.
The idea is that if Trump does not want to resign, let's create him enough stress so that he
can enjoy the ride. The former stripper is perfect for this dirty role as she has not decency
by definition. She can act scandalous and dirty, as she was trained by her craft.
In this sense West can't get to Putin private life, his whole personal life a secret and he
sits in Russia/ Or Skripal is a good substitute to Stormy Daniels in this particular case. They
can street him for a long time, like they did previously with Litvinenko and MH17.
After Skripal magically recovers he like Story can hire advocates and sue Putin. And money
magically will be available. As well as maybe a support group of activists from the White
helmets. Lawsuits will be filed against Putin in courts of London and European curt for human
rights, and several other courts, you name it. In short everywhere to provide the maximum
coverage in mass media and make that scandal as louder and as dirty as possible. How long many
British elite want to play this record is unclear, but want to play it very loud for sure.
The goal is simple. Get on Putin nerves. Isolate him by harassing anyone who tries to
cooperate with him. for example if Merkel wants to shake hands with Putin Western MSM will
scream and see Merkel shakes hands with the poisoner! Remember there is a case against him in
the court of London about Skripal poisoning.
Everybody should stand against the tyrant! Who not with us, is the Putinist! Who would not
jump is Moskal! And so 100,000 times. Until total exhaustion. Like a pack of dogs hunt a fox.
In the end, creating nervousness and uncertainty make difficult to impossible any constructive
dialogue with the West. And meantime British tilt the situation in their favor in EU too.
Moreover, the series of expulsions of ambassadors is not over. The British now need to
rebuild the iron curtain, at least a part of it. This way it is easiest to lie and deceive
British public. If nobody travels to Russia personally, you can tell a lot of takes with
impunity. This is how they play North Korea card, and with repeat this with Russia.
The question arise. What is the counter game against perfidious Albion, if such counter-game
exists?
Хамское поведение Лондона породило в России бурную ответную реакцию – от возмущения до насмешек в адрес "мелкобритании".
К сожалению, подобное высмеивание не лучший вариант ответа. Ведь мы имеем дело с угрозой отнюдь не шуточного масштаба, и вся история
взаимоотношений России и Британии это доказывает.
Поведение Великобритании в деле Скрипаля откровенно вызывающе – обвинения в адрес России, рекомендация "заткнуться", заявления
о личной причастности Путина. Все это, естественно, вызывает возмущение в России.
Но если возмущение нашей общественности можно понять, то вот высмеивание Британии и ее элит совершенно неправильно. Странно
выглядят рассуждения о том, что это все "мелкобритания", что "англичанка" уже не та, что она растеряла свое влияние и в бессильной
злобе пакостит России. Это все не годится даже для банальной ответной пропаганды – ибо искажает реальность.
В наших интересах быть честными. Мы уже несколько лет находимся в открытом конфликте с мировой элитой, с теми, кто имеет определяющее
влияние на мировые дела. Именно эта сила сейчас говорит с нами устами Мэй и Джонсона. То, что мы называем ее "англичанкой", –
наша традиция с XIX века, когда мы обнаружили ее местоположение. А в реальности это тот самый мировой наднациональный класс денег
и власти, элита, всерьез в очередной раз взявшаяся за Россию. Не из-за Крыма и Скрипаля, а вследствие того, что мы реально встали
у них на пути.
На пути глобализации по-англосаксонски – то есть проекта создания единого человечества, управляемого из западного центра. Западного
– в данном случае синоним атлантического, англосаксонского. Этот проект осуществляется последние сто лет практически в открытую.
Через постепенное укрупнение компаний и капиталов, через сближение цивилизаций и культур, их смешение и взаимопроникновение. Через
создание единых глобальных институтов, финансовых, управленческих, надзорных и прочих, формирование новой морали и философии трансгуманизма.
Человечество ведут к его "золотому веку", в котором не будет ни государств, ни наций, ни полов. Те, кто против – ретрограды и
консерваторы, враги прогресса и человечества. То, что пока что это не произносится в качестве официальных деклараций, ничего не
значит, это лишь вопрос времени. Пока что Россию "по старинке" обвиняют в тоталитаризме да терроризме – ну так проще и привычнее.
Кто обвиняет? То самое "мировое сообщество", которое при ближайшем рассмотрении оказывается Западом. А при еще более тщательном
– англосаксонской, то есть американо-английской элитой. Это люди, которые "имеют право решать".
Формально они объединены в закрытые клубы или открытые ордена, публичные общества или тайные ложи. Они могут быть владельцами
банков или герцогами, сенаторами или министрами. Должности и даже размер капитала имеют второстепенное значение – важна сама принадлежность
к кругу. И для этого круга одинаково враждебны Владимир Путин и Дональд Трамп (последний потому, что самозванец, выскочка, узурпатор,
к тому же с неправильными, неглобалистскими идеями). А Путин бросает практически открытый вызов, заявляя о том, что Россия
никогда не согласится с навязываемым мировым порядком. К тому же Путин еще и высмеивает западные страны как не имеющие
полноценного суверенитета.
Но когда Путин проходится по несамостоятельности европейских стран, он намекает на Германию и Францию или более мелкие страны.
Но не на Великобританию. И несмотря на то, что мощь Америки формально несравнимо больше британской, в реальности именно Лондон
остается ведущим в атлантическом тандеме. Почему?
Потому что мощь страны определяется не авианосцами и не размером экономики – а управленческими, интеллектуальными, стратегическими
и финансовыми возможностями ее элиты. И в этом смысле руководящая и направляющая роль Лондона как "центра силы" никем
не оспаривается. Там расположены те же самые семьи, которые топили Испанскую империю, устраивали опиумные войны против
Китая, сталкивали Россию и Германию в Первой мировой войне, играли на развал России через Чеченскую войну.
Это реальные игроки в мировые шахматы. Для них борьба с Россией – традиционная и давняя игра.
А вот чьими голосами ее озвучивать – дело десятое. То есть британские министры и премьеры могут быть приказчиками истинной
элиты, а могут быть и ее непосредственными представителями.
Уинстон Черчилль, он же герцог Мальборо, принадлежал к самой настоящей сердцевине британской элиты, а заодно и был премьером.
В этом его главное отличие от Маргарет Тэтчер, а не в степени влияния Великобритании, как страны, на мировые дела. Да, при втором
премьерстве Черчилля Британская империя закатилась, но осталось Содружество наций, объединяющее несколько десятков государств,
в 15 из которых королева еще и является главой государства (включая Канаду и Австралию). Остались "Пять глаз" – система взаимодействия
между разведками пяти англосаксонских стран (США, Великобритании, Канады, Австралии и Новой Зеландии), осталась завязка Федеральной
резервной системы США на банки из лондонского Сити.
Много чего осталось, так что не принципиально, кто именно возглавляет британское правительство: дочь бакалейщика Маргарет Тэтчер
или дочь священника Тереза Мэй, выпускник Итона Дэвид Кэмерон или аристократ Борис Джонсон (он тоже в свое время поселится на
Даунинг-стрит, 10). Фамилия премьера не имеет принципиального значения. Когда мы слышим тот хамский тон, которым с нами говорят
британские руководители, мы должны понимать, что они лишь озвучивают ту ненависть и гнев, которые питают к нашей политике хозяева
западного мира. Те, кого в советские годы называли "транснациональным капиталом", а сейчас для простоты картины обозначают как
"атлантистов".
И недооценивать их силу просто опасно. Неоднократно в нашей истории мы сталкивались не просто с коварством
Лондона, но и с внезапным ударом, становившимся смертельным для наших правителей, а то и нашей страны. Март 1801-го и декабрь
1916-го – две очень нехорошие даты нашей истории. Два убийства, к которым имели непосредственное отношение англичане, – императора
Павла Первого и Григория Распутина (ставшее сигналом к свержению царя спустя два месяца).
Сейчас "англичанка" оказалась способна лишь на провокацию с попыткой убийства Скрипаля, как до этого она расправилась с
Березовским. Но это не значит, что она не способна на большее.
Мы четыре года сталкиваемся с единым западным фронтом, организованным после Крыма, и забота о поддержании единства его рядов
сейчас переходит от Вашингтона (где сидит чужой для атлантистов Трамп) к Лондону. То есть поближе к реальному центру власти западного
мира. Если мы будем считать его мелкобританией – мы не сможем восстановить Великую Россию.
"... In summing up, we are expected to believe that Russia is responsible for an attack in Salisbury, England. Meanwhile, the war criminals in our midst are responsible for attacks and heinous crimes against humanity, and the evidence [6] is available for all to see. In fact, I believe we need to put our present day war criminals on trial. Therefore, I ask, 'Do We Need Present Day Nuremberg Trials"? [7] ..."
"Because of the nerve poison attack, NATO also imposed punitive measures against Russia. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced
that seven employees of the Russian NATO representation would be deprived of accreditation. In addition, the Russian delegation will
be limited to 20 of the current 30 employees. The NATO countries had already condemned the attack on Skripal earlier this month and
expressed their solidarity with Great Britain...." 29.03.2018
http://www.dw.com/de/russland-schlie%C3%9Ft-us-konsulat-in-st-petersburg/a-43190085
It must have been very heartening for the war gangs and war criminals of NATO [1] to see the solidarity of their members all voicing
their criticism of Russia despite there being no proof that Russia was behind this attack in Salisbury, England. Oh well, to paraphrase
an old saying, "war criminal birds of a feather always stick or fly, bomb, and kill together."
Their frenzy of solidarity was a sight to see, war criminals, torturers, child killers, trainers and supporters of terrorists,
murderers, killers of civilians, assassins, killers of children with drones, suppliers of arms to head chopping dictators, and on
and on goes the list that these heinous hypocrites with fancy titles [2] are culpable of. They also could be called: "The Self Righteous
War Criminals That Murdered Millions" [3]
"The U.S. government leads the world in assassinations. No other regime can come close in this remarkable achievement. Every month,
there are new assassinations. The process never stops. People are being assassinated on a regular basis by national-security state
officials. The assassinations include American citizens. State-sponsored assassinations have become an ordinary part of American
governmental life. The U.S. government also leads the world in bombings. Every day, new bombs are dropped on people. We don't even
know how many people are being killed by the bombs. We don't know who the victims are. It doesn't really matter...." Jacob G. Hornberger,
September 23, 2014 http://fff.org/2014/09/23/national-security-patriotism-and-treason/
The powerful are not being held to account for the massive destruction, killings, bombings' and invasions they perpetrated. The
homeless and stateless are now wandering the earth as a result of devious conspiracies by those in power. These dishonourable "leaders"
bask in the limelight of the world stage. Real life abominable actors in this real production of evil personified. Some of them even
offer to "help" in this hellish tragedy of refugees that they diabolically created. Hypocrites, dressed in expensive suits, with
fancy titles to their names, pretending to be "humanitarians." Therefore, one has to ask: "Are We Seeing Government By Gangsters"?
[4]
There is overwhelming evidence that our tax dollars are paying for treasonous acts by our so-called leaders. These "leaders" are
reportedly arming and training terrorists. Unfortunately the corporate media are covering up the crimes of those in power. Meanwhile
the people are too busy watching basketball games, hockey games, Olympic games, football games, baseball games, political games,
and numerous other games provided to distract their attention to what is really happening in this war criminal controlled world.
See links below for evidence of the treason and treachery of "leaders" past, and presently in positions of power that are responsible
for the plotting and planning of illegal wars and the deaths of millions. See Article: "The Treason and Treachery Paid for By Our
Tax Dollars." [5]
In summing up, we are expected to believe that Russia is responsible for an attack in Salisbury, England. Meanwhile, the war criminals
in our midst are responsible for attacks and heinous crimes against humanity, and the evidence [6] is available for all to see. In
fact, I believe we need to put our present day war criminals on trial. Therefore, I ask, 'Do We Need Present Day Nuremberg Trials"?
[7]
Because based on the evidence, never have so many war criminals and villains been elected to public office and given the title,
"honourable."
"... The mass expulsion this week of some 130 Russian diplomats by Britain, the United States and other NATO allies is but the latest step in a long campaign to criminalize Russia. Like past ruses to demonize Russia, this latest effort will also fail. Because they are based on lies and deception. ..."
"... This week, the British government published a six-page briefing on the March 4 incident in Salisbury, where Sergei Skripal (66) and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were apparently exposed to a nerve poison. The briefing issued by London was the basis for some 25 other states joining in the campaign to expel Russian diplomats from their territories, and to echo British accusations that Moscow is guilty of an assassination attempt. ..."
"... One assertion in the briefing is that British scientists at top-secret chemical warfare laboratories at Porton Down – eight miles from Salisbury – "positively identified military-grade Novichok". The latter chemical is reputedly a potent nerve toxin. Another British government assertion is that "Novichok is a group of nerve agents developed only [sic] by Russia". That last assertion is patently false. Any number of states could synthesize the organophosphate compound whose chemical formula has been publicly known for years. ..."
"... The campaign to convict Russia over an alleged assassination plot relies entirely on the say-so of British authorities who neither present evidence nor permit independent verification of their claims. That is an outrageous arrogance and abuse of legal norms by the British state. ..."
"... Compounding the mockery of due process, the British government's briefing this week launched into a tangential litany of other alleged "Russian malign activity". Russia was accused of "assassinating Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" – another former spy apparently poisoned on British territory. That case is far from proven, relying again solely on official British claims. ..."
"... The British authorities claim that one of their "measured and proportionate responses" to their insane accusations against Russia is the "dismantling of the network of Russian intelligence operatives in the UK". That is tantamount to a self-license for more British transgressions. ..."
The mass expulsion this week of some 130 Russian diplomats by Britain, the United States and
other NATO allies is but the latest step in a long campaign to criminalize Russia. Like past
ruses to demonize Russia, this latest effort will also fail. Because they are based on lies and
deception.
However, it is absolutely reprehensible that these anti-Russian states are ramping up
international tensions by trampling all over legal and diplomatic norms with wild,
unsubstantiated accusations against Moscow.
On the back of British claims that Russia was somehow involved in a murder plot against a
former Russian spy living in England, and his daughter, a whole host of NATO and European Union
member states have compounded diplomatic sanctions against Moscow.
This is way more dangerous than the old Cold War. Because the erosion of legal and
diplomatic norms by the US-led NATO powers are making repercussions unpredictable and
unrestrained.
The whole affair is bizarre beyond words; yet, largely at the behest of the British
government, international relations with Russia have been plunged into dire condition. Russia
is being condemned without any evidence or due process. This is a dangerous anti-Russia
witch-hunt conducted on a global scale.
This week, the British government published a six-page briefing on the March 4 incident in
Salisbury, where Sergei Skripal (66) and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were apparently exposed
to a nerve poison. The briefing issued by London was the basis for some 25 other states joining
in the campaign to expel Russian diplomats from their territories, and to echo British
accusations that Moscow is guilty of an assassination attempt.
Any objective reading of Britain's so-called "intelligence briefing" could only elicit a
response of contempt and derision. It is but a superficial sketch, containing errors and based
on the usual tenuous innuendo and assertion that the British government has been proffering
since the March 4 incident. There is no verifiable proof to support the very grave allegations
Britain is making against Russia. Yet this risible "briefing" is the supposed basis for an
international campaign to criminalize Russia.
One assertion in the briefing is that British scientists at top-secret chemical warfare
laboratories at Porton Down – eight miles from Salisbury – "positively identified
military-grade Novichok". The latter chemical is reputedly a potent nerve toxin. Another
British government assertion is that "Novichok is a group of nerve agents developed only [sic]
by Russia". That last assertion is patently false. Any number of states could synthesize the
organophosphate compound whose chemical formula has been publicly known for years.
If the British scientists positively identified Novichok, as is claimed, then they must have
had a standard sample of the chemical in their possession in order to conduct an analysis. If
so, that then contradicts the assertion that Russia is the only source of such a chemical
– a claim which Moscow, in any case, categorically denies.
There are many other flaws in the British briefing which render the document a joke on legal
standards.
Preposterously, this travesty is being used to mount an international campaign to condemn
Russia with far-reaching repercussions for global peace.
Let's deal with some facts, instead of being railroaded by official British assertions and
claims for which they do not permit independent verification.
The fact is that a Russian citizen, Yulia Skripal, is detained in England, supposedly in a
hospital, along with her British naturalized father. The Skripal family relatives in Russia
have reportedly not been given any information by the British authorities on Yulia's exact
condition.
Nearly four weeks after the alleged incident on March 4, the Russian authorities have still
not been given consular access to one of its citizens who is being de facto detained on British
soil. That is a gross violation of the Vienna Convention governing consular rights.
More sinisterly, it is the British authorities who should be held responsible for any
ill-fate of Yulia and her father.
The campaign to convict Russia over an alleged assassination plot relies entirely on the
say-so of British authorities who neither present evidence nor permit independent verification
of their claims. That is an outrageous arrogance and abuse of legal norms by the British
state.
Compounding the mockery of due process, the British government's briefing this week launched
into a tangential litany of other alleged "Russian malign activity". Russia was accused of
"assassinating Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" – another former spy apparently poisoned on
British territory. That case is far from proven, relying again solely on official British
claims.
Other outlandish, indeed slanderous, British accusations included Russia "shooting down" a
Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014; interfering in the US elections; cyberattacks on
Germany, Denmark, Estonia and Britain; "occupation of Crimea in February [sic] 2014"; and
"invasion of Georgia in 2008".
All these claims have been rigorously denied or disproven by Russia. It is staggering that
the British government in a supposed "intelligence briefing" could cite these hackneyed claims
as somehow lending substantiation to the bizarre poisoning incident related to the
Skripals.
It is truly astounding, not to say perplexing, that international law and diplomatic norms
are being so brutalized on the basis of brazen lies and incompetence.
The British authorities claim that one of their "measured and proportionate responses" to
their insane accusations against Russia is the "dismantling of the network of Russian
intelligence operatives in the UK". That is tantamount to a self-license for more British
transgressions.
British Prime Minister Theresa May also this week in a phone call with US President Donald
Trump reportedly discussed drawing up more sanctions on Russia to eject "spy networks" from
their respective countries.
So, Russian diplomats are being re-defined as "spies". Again, this is self-license for more
provocations, and, worse, the erosion of diplomatic channels for possible correction.
What this amounts to is a new, unfettered phase in American, British and NATO efforts to
criminalize Russia. Criminalization run amok. Is there any limit to the insanity? No,
disturbingly, this is a subjective tailspin with no limit – until a head-on crash.
The list of "malign activity" cited above in the British briefing are all past examples of
NATO information warfare – or more bluntly, propaganda lies and falsehoods.
Those efforts have failed in their objective to subjugate and cow Russia into submission
towards US and NATO dominance. Russia's military intervention in Syria to nullify NATO's dirty
covert war for regime change against the Assad government is perhaps the clearest demonstration
of Russia's effective defiance.
Out of frustrated failure to defeat Russia through demonization, the information warfare has
been wantonly stepped up in attempts to criminalize Moscow and President Vladimir Putin.
Britain and its allies assert "there can be no other plausible explanation" for the
poisoning of the Skripals other than Russian culpability. Wrong. A far more plausible
explanation is that Britain and its allies are engaged in a scurrilous, illegal campaign to
criminalize Russia.
Britain likes to claim a noble heritage of democratic politics, philosophy and law.
Arguably, the British are entitled to that claim.
There again, the British also have a more dubious heritage of piracy and state-sponsored
skulduggery. This latter tradition seems more on display in the new and much more dangerous
Cold War against Russia.
"... Nonetheless, curiously, the EU countries by and large made only 'token' expulsions. As many as 7 EU countries simply moved on by expelling one Russian diplomat each. Having said that, the pressure campaign is continuing and the likelihood of more EU countries joining the expulsion cannot be ruled out. ..."
"... By the way, even PM May claims only that it is "highly likely" that there was Russian involvement (not excluding rogue elements.) Yet, a cardinal principle in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that no one is deemed guilty unless proven guilty. ..."
"... THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR ..."
"... 30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .) ..."
"... To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic leadership – at a defining moment when Britain is giving up EU membership ..."
The
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by some countries of the European Union and North America on Monday is an unprecedented and
intriguing development.
First, the US alone accounts for some two-thirds of the expulsion – 60 diplomats. Curiously, even Britain, which is apparently
the aggrieved party in the Skripal affair, expelled less than half that number – 23. Broadly, however, this is an Anglo-American
move with which a number of EU countries and Canada display solidarity.
Second, President Trump is apparently more loyal to Her Majesty in the Buckingham Palace than Prime Minister Theresa May. This
gives an intriguing twist to the tale. Why is there such an excessive interest on the part of Washington, especially at a time when
the fervor of the Anglo-American kinship has significantly dampened during the Trump era? (President Trump is yet to visit the UK.)
Is it a massive diversionary tactic by the White House the day after porn star Stormy Daniels took Trump's pants off in her
TV interview on '60 Minutes' ? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump to flaunt that he isn't 'soft' on Russia? Or, is it the
Deep State in action – as the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle might well suggest? There are no easy answers.
Third, only less than half the 28 member countries of the EU have signaled support for the Anglo-American campaign over the spy
incident. There is much reluctance or skepticism within the EU about what is going on. Surprisingly, though, Germany, which had voiced
skepticism at an early stage, has now joined the pack. Which probably shows that there has been immense pressure from Washington
and London.
Nonetheless, curiously, the EU countries by and large made only 'token' expulsions. As many as 7 EU countries simply moved
on by expelling one Russian diplomat each. Having said that, the pressure campaign is continuing and the likelihood of more EU countries
joining the expulsion cannot be ruled out.
Austria has point-blank refused to join. (So has Turkey, which virtually rules out a NATO stance, which requires unanimous support
from all member countries.) What is truly extraordinary is that the circumstances surrounding the alleged poisoning an MI6 double
agent of Russian extraction are still shrouded in mystery.
By the way, even PM May claims only that it is "highly likely" that there was Russian involvement (not excluding rogue elements.)
Yet, a cardinal principle in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that no one is deemed guilty unless proven guilty.
Indeed, a range of explanations is possible as to what really might have happened in Salisbury. Read an excellent analysis by
the respected British scholar on Russia Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent and Associate
Fellow of Chatham House, titled THE SKRIPAL
AFFAIR , here .
Even in America, there are voices of scepticism. An enterprising columnist drew up 30 questions that beg an answer. (See the column
by Bob Slane featured on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, titled
30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .)To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed
into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic leadership – at a defining moment when
Britain is giving up EU membership. This is one thing.
But, more importantly, does the build-up portend something far more sinister than one would anticipate? One particular passage
from Prof. Sakwa's essay becomes a chilling reminder about what may be lying in the womb of time:
"The only question is whether the confrontation will dissipate, as it did over Agadir in 1911, or whether this is the Sarajevo
slow-burning crisis that could explode into flame at some later point Will it be another case of the sinking of the Maine in 1898,
where the subsequent public hysteria provoked war against Spain only to be discovered later that the ship's ammunition stores
had accidentally exploded; or a Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was also a false flag operation but provoked the escalation
of the Vietnam War.
The West may be 'uniting' against Russia, as The Times put it on 16 March, but to what purpose."
"... Therefore, Moscow's decision to give back to the Americans fully in their own coin marks a new stage. First, Russians have assessed that the controversy over the Skripal spy case is in reality an Anglo-American joint venture – and not a solo act by London. Evidently, the feedback from various European capitals would be that they came under immense American pressure to follow the US-UK lead and expel Russian diplomats. Which means there is a deliberate American strategy to degrade Russia's relations with the West. There is really no sense in Moscow trying to salvage the situation by making conciliatory moves. ..."
"... Second, Russians are no longer making a distinction between President Trump and the so-called Deep State in America. They will henceforth attack Trump's policies on merit. Put differently, Trump cannot have it both ways – being pally with Vladimir Putin on the phone while also acting bloody-mindedly toward Russia on the policy front. The Russians couldn't care a damn anymore as to who is the "real Trump" or whether he is only trying to placate the "swamp" in the Beltway. ..."
"... Third, most important, Russia is assessing that the only language Washington understands is the language of strength. This of course has profound consequences for regional and international security. Indeed, there are serious limitations today to the US' capacity to browbeat Russia. The US policies are inconsistent and fickle whereas Russian foreign policy is rational, coherent and stable. The American society is hopelessly split and polarized whereas Russian society is consolidated and stands united. Trump can never match anywhere near the groundswell of support Putin enjoys from the Russian nation. ..."
"... On the other hand, China has signaled its interest to further strengthen the quasi-alliance with Russia. The Chinese Ministry of Defence said on Thursday that Beijing and Moscow will "jointly defend the interests of the two states and also maintain regional and global peace and stability." No doubt, it is a hugely resonant statement in the prevailing backdrop. The Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe is visiting Moscow next week. ..."
"... Significantly, the Russian note verbale on Thursday declaring the expulsion of 60 American diplomats gives a pointed warning to the Trump administration that any seizure of Russian assets in the US "will lead to a serious deterioration in bilateral relations, which will result in dire consequences for global stability." ..."
The video
of Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi nonchalantly zipping up his trousers at the
JFK airport in New York after the frisking when he landed on American soil recently, gives a
dismal feeling. But one would say, 'No surprises here!' No, I'm not making a 'anti-Pakistan'
statement. Frankly, 90 percent of the Indian elite would also any day be only too eager to
unzip their trousers if that was what was needed to be permitted to enter the US. Remember the
famous incident of the stripping of an Indian Defence Minister right down to his underwear at
the JFK airport?
It is in their DNA – be it Abbasis or Bhatias and Suris. Pathetic. Their argument is a
familiar one – only the West can provide us investments and new technology, management
practices and facilitate integration into global technological chains. Of course, Indian
pundits went overboard by expounding that the George W Bush administration was determined to
make their country a 'great power' and a 'counterweight' to China, and make it America's
'natural ally' and so on.
That is why this morning's news of the expulsion of 60 American diplomats posted in Russia
brings cheer. To be frank, I was skeptical whether Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would be able
to keep his word when he said earlier this week that Russia would retaliate. The point is,
Russia also has its fair share of the 'westernists' among its elite. Even after all that has
happened in Russia's relations with the US in the recent years and notwithstanding the foul air
that envelops them, there are Russian strategists who still argue that America is an
indispensable partner for Russia.
Therefore, Moscow's decision to give back to the Americans fully in their own coin marks
a new stage. First, Russians have assessed that the controversy over the Skripal spy case is in
reality an Anglo-American joint venture – and not a solo act by London. Evidently, the
feedback from various European capitals would be that they came under immense American pressure
to follow the US-UK lead and expel Russian diplomats. Which means there is a deliberate
American strategy to degrade Russia's relations with the West. There is really no sense in
Moscow trying to salvage the situation by making conciliatory moves.
Second, Russians are no longer making a distinction between President Trump and the
so-called Deep State in America. They will henceforth attack Trump's policies on merit. Put
differently, Trump cannot have it both ways – being pally with Vladimir Putin on the
phone while also acting bloody-mindedly toward Russia on the policy front. The Russians
couldn't care a damn anymore as to who is the "real Trump" or whether he is only trying to
placate the "swamp" in the Beltway.
Third, most important, Russia is assessing that the only language Washington understands
is the language of strength. This of course has profound consequences for regional and
international security. Indeed, there are serious limitations today to the US' capacity to
browbeat Russia. The US policies are inconsistent and fickle whereas Russian foreign policy is
rational, coherent and stable. The American society is hopelessly split and polarized whereas
Russian society is consolidated and stands united. Trump can never match anywhere near the
groundswell of support Putin enjoys from the Russian nation.
In geopolitical terms, the US' transatlantic leadership role is shaky. Interestingly, while
making token expulsion of Russian diplomats on Monday, Germany also simultaneously gave the
final clearance
for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project from Russia, defying the US
opposition. French President Emmanuel Macron just signaled his plan to visit Russia in May.
Austria point blank turned down the US-UK demarche seeking expulsion of Russian diplomats. May
12 becomes a crucial dateline: if Trump tears up the Iran nuclear deal, there may be mutiny by
the US' European allies.
On the other hand, China has signaled its interest to further strengthen the
quasi-alliance with Russia. The Chinese
Ministry of Defence said on Thursday that Beijing and Moscow will "jointly defend the
interests of the two states and also maintain regional and global peace and stability." No
doubt, it is a hugely resonant statement in the prevailing backdrop. The Chinese Defence
Minister Wei Fenghe is visiting Moscow next week.
In strategic terms, too, the new weapon systems
developed by Russia (announced by Putin on March 1) reinforce the country's capacity to
maintain global strategic balance for the foreseeable future. The hypersonic missiles, in
particular, are unique and can be decisively lethal in a Russia-US confrontation.
Significantly, the Russian
note verbale on Thursday declaring the expulsion of 60 American diplomats gives a pointed
warning to the Trump administration that any seizure of Russian assets in the US "will lead to
a serious deterioration in bilateral relations, which will result in dire consequences for
global stability."
"... "We have very serious suspicion that this provocation was done by British intelligence," Yakovenko told Russia's NTV channel. He clarified that Russia has no direct proof of this suspicion, but the behavior of the British government constitutes strong circumstantial evidence in support of this theory. ..."
"We have very serious suspicion that this provocation was done by British intelligence,"
Yakovenko told Russia's NTV channel. He clarified that Russia has no direct proof of this
suspicion, but the behavior of the British government constitutes strong circumstantial
evidence in support of this theory.
The diplomat added that London had gained both short-term and long-term benefits from the
poisoning. The short-term gain is that Theresa May's government managed to spin this story to
whip up support both at home and in Europe, while sidelining its failures to negotiate more
favorable terms for exiting the European Union, Yakovenko said. The long-term benefit is that
it improved London's standing in the ongoing confrontation between the West and Russia.
"The Britons are claiming a leading role in the so-called containment of Russia. To win
support from the people and the parliament for this containment of Russia, a serious
provocation was required. And the Britons may have done a really savage one to get this
support," he said.
The ambassador said that details of British investigations into the deaths of several
high-profile people with Russian ties have been kept from the public. These include former
Russian intelligence officer Aleksandr Litvinenko, Georgian tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili,
fugitive Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky and Russian whistleblower Aleksandr Perepilichny.
He said he hoped there would be a public disclosure of relevant facts in relation to the
Skripal case.
"I am sure Russia will not allow the Britons to escape the legal field. They will have to
give answers," he said.
After the poisoning in Salisbury, the UK convinced some of its allies to follow its lead by
expelling Russian diplomats. The US was the most receptive to the call, kicking 60 Russians out
of the country, which dwarfed the UK's expulsion of 23 people. European countries that chose to
show solidarity with London expelled between one and four diplomats each. Ukraine expelled
13.
Russia hit back with reciprocal expulsions of foreign diplomats. It also demanded that
Britain downsize its diplomatic mission in Russia to that of Russia in Britain, affecting over
50 jobs.
Earlier in the month, he was paraded in the UK media as an example of Russian exiles in fear
for their lives. The UK tabloids are running this story about the exiles going into hiding in
Europe from MI6.
Russian elite already views May's government as bandits, who staged this despicable provocation. So stakes for British elite are
very high.
And the way May government tried to capitalize on this "poisoning" is really like going "all in". May clearly went what French call
"va bank". Reckless statement of Johnson, who is a very weak diplomat, but no fool, if a clear testament that they expect to prevail
with pretty weak cards. With ultimate reliance on power of the USA to secure favorable outcome.
Looks more and more that this is a part of Russiagate, or color revolution against Trump, however you want to call the effort: the
collusion between the intelligence heads of the Obama administration with British intelligence to oust President Trump.
The Russian Foreign Ministry is now openly pointing the possibility of a UK intelligence involvement. That sheds a very bad light
on EU vassals who without any questioning and with any proof immediately fell into line behind Theresa May.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry even said this was a tool used by the Europeans and the United States to try to get unity at a point
when they were completely disunified. And this is the old geopolitical game, that in order to create unity you create a war, and then
everybody has to fall into line before attacking Iran.
Compare with Ron Paul views on this incident: www.youtube.com
Notable quotes:
"... The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security or the Middle East come into play. ..."
"... The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious, it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the mercy of Moscow. ..."
That does not mean the crisis will necessarily end there, or that the crisis is contained.
Russia, whose standing among the international community
is badly damaged, is determined to do go further to clear its name, or at least throw up enough chaff so that a chunk of western
public opinion doubts the British intelligence service's account of Skripal's poisoning. Moscow has already suggested a meeting on
Monday of the executive of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to have "an honest conversation" about
the poisoning.
The OPCW is studying samples – provided by the UK – of the novichok nerve agent allegedly used, but does not have the ability
to judge the identity of the person that
placed the agent by the door of Skripal's house . But the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, is determined to put the UK
on the defensive and has already claimed that "if our western partners dodge the meeting then it will be further evidence that every
thing that is happened is a provocation".
Russia has also responded to the apparent recovery of Yulia Skripal, who was poisoned alongside her father. She may be able to
provide insights into how the poisoning occurred, or even reveal whether she knows of some other motive by some other non-state actor.
The British intelligence services will be debriefing her as soon as her health permits. It would clearly be a huge embarrassment
for the UK government if it emerged she believed the Russian state was not involved.
As it is, the UK government is aware that some allied leaders, despite the public show of solidarity, face skeptical voters at
home who are either against a confrontation with Vladimir Putin, or expect more convincing proof to be provided.
The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson,
in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach
to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security
or the Middle East come into play.
The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious,
it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the
mercy of Moscow.
"... "Are we playing cards here or dealing with serious matters? Is this a game of poker or international relations?" Maria Zakharova said when asked by Sky News correspondent John Sparks if Moscow accepted that "Russia has a serious credibility problem," ..."
"... "Is it a sort of international game within the rules set by the UN Charter or, alternatively, is it an unrestricted use of force and pressure?" she said, questioning the behavior of the UK and the US. ..."
"... Zakharova explained that "for decades, it was the West that taught others, including Russia, that force should not be used. Neither should political or ideological pressure." Yet, she noted when Moscow accepted the Western rules and "became an open and transparent international player," and showed that the world can be "multi-polar," then it "felt no longer being accepted." As an example, she mentioned the US interfering in Russia's energy supply deals with Europe. ..."
"... Zakharova then asked the British journalist a question: "Do you think that after the anti-Iraq campaign, Western nations – the nations that were part of the coalition – deserve being trusted?" ..."
"... But Sparks refused to answer, saying that he wasn't a representative of the British government. And when offered to share his personal opinion on the matter, he replied: "That's not my concern. That's not why I am here. I think you are deflecting." ..."
"... She said that countries that refuse to cave into this pressure and spoil relations with Moscow, like Turkey, "show a responsible approach to international law." Zakharova warned that "tomorrow or the day after tomorrow any country could become a victim of a provocation," like the one Russia currently faces. ..."
It is more appropriate to question the credibility of the West, which pressures other
countries to express "solidarity" and invade Iraq on a false pretext, than that of Russia, the
spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry said. "Are we playing cards here or dealing with
serious matters? Is this a game of poker or international relations?" Maria Zakharova said
when asked by Sky News correspondent John Sparks if Moscow accepted that "Russia has a
serious credibility problem," as a large group of countries simply don't believe its
denials in the case of the poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal.
"Is it a sort of international game within the rules set by the UN Charter or,
alternatively, is it an unrestricted use of force and pressure?" she said, questioning the
behavior of the UK and the US.
Zakharova explained that "for decades, it was the West that taught others, including
Russia, that force should not be used. Neither should political or ideological pressure." Yet,
she noted when Moscow accepted the Western rules and "became an open and transparent
international player," and showed that the world can be "multi-polar," then it
"felt no longer being accepted." As an example, she mentioned the US interfering in
Russia's energy supply deals with Europe.
Zakharova then asked the British journalist a question: "Do you think that after the
anti-Iraq campaign, Western nations – the nations that were part of the coalition –
deserve being trusted?"
But Sparks refused to answer, saying that he wasn't a representative of the British
government. And when offered to share his personal opinion on the matter, he replied: "That's
not my concern. That's not why I am here. I think you are deflecting."
Speaking about the solidarity of a large group of countries, she said that this is something
that should not come out of "pressure," as it happened after former double agent
Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with a Soviet-designed nerve agent in
Salisbury in early March. Zakharova said the way counties expelled between one to four
diplomats at different times and under different pretexts, shows that it was done "under
colossal pressure."
She said that countries that refuse to cave into this pressure and spoil relations with
Moscow, like Turkey, "show a responsible approach to international law." Zakharova
warned that "tomorrow or the day after tomorrow any country could become a victim of a
provocation," like the one Russia currently faces.
Don't know where he is. The UK trying to cover up something by any chance??? What a pack
of miserable liars. And the Europeans playing along...follow the leader. Dumb, dumber,
dumbest.
What is absurd in all this is that; whilst the British have been a HateMachien fuelled
vendetta against Russia for more than a century, the Europeans are not.
The HateMachine (the MSM ZioMedia) has been at the centre of every war for the last 150
years. What I don't understand is why the Europeans don't realise this.
The HateMachine is used to fuel every crises that Europe encounters. Why do the Europeans
not realise that by buying into the HateMachine Russophobe antics of the U.K, they are giving
credence to it and the lies that the U.K. perpetuates.
This HateMachine lie factory is used every time the U.K. wants to achieve something. It's
called Blood Libel. When with the Europeans realise that the target isn't really Russia. When
will the Europeans realise that the HateMachine target is Europe? The Russophobe racism is
just the pretext, the pretext to get Europe to DO WHAT LONDON WANTS.
Get with the program Europe. You have been duped. You got shafted. You got spun so bad by
the ZioMedia and you don't even realise it.
Europe is the one that will miss out. Not having Russia as an integrated component of
Europe has cost the 'Europeans' hundreds of billions, probably trillions, of Euro's as well
as their long term security.
Europe could have been number one as an integrated unit with Russia. But, now there is the
perfect storm. You have driven Russia into the arms of China. And it is only because you
(Europe) lack the intelligence to see through the oldest trick in the book: Nationalistic
fuelled Fear Racism. You are a victim of the HateMachine. You were always the target. It is
you they are trying manipulate. It is you that has been duped by then THINNEST, most BASELESS
of lies the ZioMedia have ever come up with. Two people, who aren't important, got poised by
a drug the UK won't identify, by perpetrators they REFUSE to identify, for an UNKNOWN MOTIVE,
at at time that benefits the ZioEmpire and no-one else.
Get with the program. Europe, you got shafted. You are schmuks. You got duped; conned, had
the wool pulled over your eyes; and it's going to cost you trillions in lost business and the
future of your nation.... All because you really are quite STUPID!
British Interior Minister Amber Rudd said that her agency's employees will check 700 Russians who received investment visas prior
to 2015, promising to invest Ł 2 million ($ 2.8 million) or more in the UK. The system of issuing investment visas has been tightened
since its introduction. However, there are fears that it could still allow corrupt officials and illegal money to enter the UK. (Since
when did they ever care about that? Most crooks seeks asylum in the UK and are easily granted it, as "enemies of Russia.")
Prime Minister Teresa May said earlier that in London "there is no place" for corrupt Russian elites or their money.
The United Kingdom believes that Russia is involved in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Nobody knows where the Skripals
are – not even their own families. Media states they are in a coma and are unable to give evidence.
May also warned that London would freeze Russian state assets if they "threaten life or property of British nationals or residents
of the country."
Meanwhile, Russian investments are losing ground in Britain. In 2014, the Kingdom tightened the rules for issuing visas to wealthy
Russians, as well as anti-money laundering legislation. Additional checks led to the fact that fewer foreigners began to apply for
British visas, including Russians, Transparency International UK data show.
According to the brokerage company Hamptons International, the proportion of Russians among luxury buyers in London has declined
over the past three years.
But money laundering is the UK's biggest business! How will they survive without it, unless they're planning a Saudi-style
MBS "harvest" of assets from Russian lawbreakers and oligarchs seeking sanctuary in the UK?
"The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies and partners around the world in response to Russia's
use of a military-grade chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom , the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing
activities around the world," the White House's Press Secretary said in a statement.
On the same time, 15 EU member states, Canada and Ukraine also announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats: Poland [4 diplomats],
Lithuania [3 diplomats], Latvia [1 diplomat], Estonia [1 diplomat], Germany [4 diplomats], France [4 diplomats], Denmark [2 diplomats],
Ukraine [13 diplomats], the Czech Republic [3 diplomats], the Netherlands [2 diplomats], France [4 diplomats], Italy [2 diplomats],
Canada [4 diplomats], Romania [1 diplomat], Finland [1 diplomat], Croatia [1 diplomat] and Sweden [1 diplomat].
"Fourteen out of 28 EU member-states have decided to expel diplomats from the Russian Federation as a measure of solidarity
with London on the Skripal case Additional measures, including further sanctions within the common EU framework, cannot be excluded
in the coming days and weeks," European Council President Donald Tusk said commenting on the decision of the EU states.
The expulsion of Russian diplomats are publicly justified by the so-called Skripal case.
Hint: Former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were allegedly poisoned by a military-grade nerve-agent in the UK. The
British government accuses Russia of being behind this incident, but provided no evidence to confirm this claim. Despite this,
the US and other Western states also rushed to accuse Moscow.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas explained the decision saying that "the facts and evidence suggest that Russia is behind this
attack." This was the first time in the modern history after the World War 2 after such a decision was explained by a " suggestion
", without any investigation, arrests or production of evidence.
The Ukrainian regime used the Skripal case to further decrease the diplomatic relations with Russia.
"In response to the cynical chemical attack in Salisbury, Ukraine, in a spirit of solidarity with our British partners and
trans-Atlantic allies, and in coordination with the EU countries, has decided to expel 13 Russian diplomats Our diplomatic relations
with the Russian Federation have been de-facto frozen , as you know," Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote in his Facebook.
It is important to note that 12 of the 60 diplomats expelled from the US formed part of the Russian mission to the United Nations
. This move is in contrary to the basic norms of the international law.
On the same time, more and more experts and media outlets point out multiple strange facts surrounding the Skripal case and question
the alleged Russian involvement in it. Some of them go further drawing attention to a possible British trance behind the poisoning
and describing the incident as a pre-planned provocation.
Some experts suggest that the observed events were a pre-planned move by the Euro-Atlantic establishment. It is aimed at isolating
Russia and undermining the international relations system established in the second half of 20th century and the start of the 21th
century.
Considering the scale of the diplomats' expulsion, it can be observed that the national elites of the EU members states are not
happy with the current situation. However, they are forced to obey to the Euro-Atlantic establishment, mostly represented by the
US and the UK.
On the other hand, the global goal of this move is to increase pressure on the Western society and to shape the relations among
Western states in order to strengthen the "new" global order. This will include a full dominance of the Euro-Atlantic establishment
in the info sphere and will exploit the image of the foreign enemy to justify the total control over the society. In other words,
the Euro-Atlantic establishment will attempt to expand a model of the society of fear tested in Ukraine during the past 4 years to
the entire Euro-Atlantic world.
The Skirpal case is one of the steps en route to this global goal. SF forecasted a possible escalation caused by such events following
the presidential election in Russia in its documentary released on March 17. [
Russia's Long Road Toward Resurgence ]
In the future, it will likely be possible to observe more steps in this direction made by the Euro-Atlantic establishment.
Russia should retaliate but not 1:1, but cut ties with West countries completely.
In fact, Russia is already in war with the West and diplomacy doesn't matter any more.
It is wasting of time. Russia still hopes, that soft approach will give them some advance. They are wrong. West must be punished
with brutal force as West doesnt understand anything else then brutal force.
No. Russia shall not respond to those stupid provocations and continue to act quietly. There will be more provocations in the
future. Russia will show the world how responsible and cold blooded it is, unlike the West.
As a Western European, I can notice a gap between us the citizens and the foreign policy of our stupid leaders. The gap is
bigger day by day. Russians noticed it also. All they will have to do is to wait for our failed democracy to show its natural
limit. People in France doesn't want to hear about NATO anymore. No one in Italy would go at war under the NATO banner, specially
not against Russia.
"... enforce a newly passed law that will allow the government to confiscate or freeze any Russian capital "of dubious origin" - a measure clearly intended to permit a crackdown on Russian oligarchs living in London. ..."
"... Carrying out such a crackdown would be one way to show that the UK government is interested not only in the perfunctory expulsion of diplomats, but also the in making life more difficult for some Russian oligarchs and other businessmen who call London home. ..."
Sword of Damocles to be held over the heads' of Russian oligarchs in London and ensure they remain anti-Putin
Tyler Durden
18 hours ago
|
3,018
98
Countries around the world have announced that they would expel Russian diplomats in a show of solidarity with the
UK, but
now the Queen's government is taking things one step further
:
It's preparing to
enforce a newly passed law that will allow the government to confiscate or freeze
any Russian capital "of dubious origin" - a measure clearly intended to permit a crackdown on Russian oligarchs
living in London.
According to Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, warrants for the seizure of Russian capital and assets of
doubtful origin have already been issued, according to
Sputnik
News.
The goal is to ensure that any property attained by unknown means is registered, according to
the law.
Williams said during his speech that Russia's goal was to divide Europe, but that actions of
solidarity by Estonia and other European countries have shown "that's not possible."
Wilson promised that the government would work diligently during the coming days and weeks until this
problem is solved.
Relations between the two countries have markedly worsened since the poisoning of
former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia earlier this month. Prime Minister Theresa May has said
she's doubtful Skripal will recover - and that more than 100 bystanders have sought medical treatment.
The Russian side has denied all the accusations and suggested participating jointly in the investigation.
However, Moscow's request for samples was ignored. Moscow in turn also expelled 23 UK diplomats and ordered the
British Council to stop its activities in Russia in response to London's move.
Williamson has been a fan of bellicose language toward Russia in the wake of the attack.
He famously said earlier this month that Russia "should go away and shut up" while responding to a question
about Moscow's statements that it would expel British diplomats (which it did), as
RT
notes.
Carrying out such a crackdown would be one way to show that the UK government is interested not
only in the perfunctory expulsion of diplomats, but also the in making life more difficult for some Russian
oligarchs and other businessmen who call London home.
I hope they do pursue this, as the fallout would be most interesting. Russian oligarchs have been
laundering money through the London banks, enriching estate agents, law firms and bankers on the
way. Will they now realize that the UK no longer has property rights? Of course, they will start
repatriating their wealth. This is good for Russia and very bad for the UK. The loss of confidence
in UK protecting property rights would take a beating, as it would be recognised, quite rightly, as
a country of dubious jurisprudence that is applied in an ad hoc and political manner.
When you
consider that a lot of the UK's income is derived from money laundering (despite the governments
ludicrous attempts at corralling individual accountants and bookkeepers to act as unpaid policemen
overseeing small businesses, while allowing billions to go through the property markets), the
outcome for the economy is negative.
And non Russian foreign investors may remember the old saying - first they came for the
Russians, but I didn't care because I was not a Russian.
Actually, not only will it be humouress and keep us entertained, but, how many other oligarchs,
who invested in the UK and our corrupt politicians, react when they see how easy it was for the
Government of the day to confiscate their ill-gotten gains?
Russian zionists, fleeced by
British zionists, watched by the international zionists, that flock to the UK. A dog eat dog
world.
The Russian Federation had offered amnesty to the oligarchs if they would repatriate the money
that had been pilfered from the Russian state during the 1990s and onwards ,basically during the
Yeltsin days . Too bad they did not take advantage of the offer .
It wasn't all that long ago, that the Brit's cousins to the east, have also confiscated 'dubious'
capital, and have exterminated the original owners, ...which had NOTHING to do with any politics
whatsoever, but ALL to do with GREEEEEED!
Excellent point....You want to play with rothschilds fake money ...you will goose step in line
with the company policy...or we take back our monopoly money.
Clearly that is how the rules are set up, which is a shame no bothered to notice before they
swore off their own economy, at least the Chinese weren't so gullible, thankfully they ran
over the CIA agent on Tienanmen Square!
I doubt these oligarghs would keep all their booty in one country for this exact reason. They
likely have stashes all over the world, Switzerland, Kayman Islands, shell companies acting as
fronts etc
Perhaps they will kidnap all these oligarchs, take them to the Dorchester, hang them upside down
and turn them over to Blackwater torturers until they hand over their billions.
I know someone's dad who alleges to have been in the British army working for top American
officers in NK, as a chef. He claims to have been unfairly tortured. One of his sons hobbies
involves torturing people, rapes, threatening their kids, electric shocks to the head,
e;ectric shocks to puppies, lacing foodstuffs with dried and wet anti freeze, antifreeze in
pets water bowls, managing to sneak into homes in different ways, lots of injections
including psychoactive drugs and caustic soda. He also at least used to hypnotize kids to
commit suicide and he has drowned a nun in Hereford. The air conditioning system of one's car
is tampered with and carpets covered in mercury from old thermometers and light bulbs. You
are really unwell and do not know why and your memory is tampered with and obliterated. LNA
Chichester UK. Check your home for nasty bogeymen and bolt the doors once in. If your keys go
missing even for half an hour, replace them or get special keys which cannot readily be
copied.
In the first week of this Charade Ł7billon pounds left the UK all Russian money, does make me
wonder how much more liquidity the UK Banks have to lose before May etc realise their shooting
themselves in the foot again! 😂
I'm not so interested in British liquidity but British loonacy - they want others to do the
shooting amongst themselves. Ukraine comes to mind? DPRK, Iran, Yemen, Serbia, Africa (pick a
spot).... are all candidates.
I don't agree that Corbyn is an idiot . He has to watch how he plays his cards so that he
wins the next election .Which he will by the way. But they are after him big time .He has
a lot of forces working against him .A Corbyn win would be good for the people of the UK
IMHO.
circus yes...in america just getting into politics on a local town or country level
brings with it so many perks its like a fire sale..I have a friend he got elected to a
town board..all of a sudden he has all types of new projects going up around his
house.....its a fire sale for those in govt.
Quote:It's preparing to enforce a newly passed law that will allow
the government to confiscate or freeze any Russian capital "of dubious
origin" - a measure clearly intended to permit a crackdown on Russian
oligarchs living in London.
I'm all for it ??
Let the criminal piece of shit be robbed by their "friends" !!
Dog eat dog !!
The best move that Mother Theresa can make ...
AS Nightcrawler states, Magintsky Law, that Browder was so desperate to get passed. Who are his
biggest cheerleaders? Just a con, for politicians to go pillaging.
Why was he thrown out of
Russia and why was he thrown out of America?
Those Russians, who made it to the UK, were thrown out of Russia. So they either send their
money and investments back to Russia, which keeps the Kremlin happy, or it gets confiscated,
which also keeps the Kremlin happy. Where will they go next?
AM.. The putrid swamp creatures are BROKE !! In the old time, they could sail & pillage other
countries (China Opium Wars ect..ect..) But today, they can only , like rats go against each
other ?? Can't pillage Russia, Gospodin Putin put a stop to it .. Can't pillage China,
Chinese people & leaders got wise to it .. So rob from Russian plutocrats ? & then NOVICHOK
them ??
& it's fine with me, if its' fine with you ??
I guess they are presuming this will pressure Russia, somehow. Perhaps the Russ ollies would blame
Putin for not bending the knee? I don't know. Anyway this is all somewhat mind bogglingly insane,
I've never ever seen such a wretchedly desperate performance from any guvmint anywhere at any time
and I've been around a while.
Firs of all Mark Galeotti is very weak. That's incurable.
I want your money poor Pinocchio -- that the new slogan of May government. Kind of
compensation for Brexit losses at Russian oligarchs expense.
What Russophobe Galiotti does not understand is that this another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. As soon as you
start to distriminate between oligarche neoliberalism stops and nationalism starts
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him ..."
"... He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion . ..."
"... The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. ..."
This is also a project in which further international cooperation would be crucial. Chasing
that money and the influence it buys out of London but seeing it find comfortable new homes in
Paris, Frankfurt, and New York is only half the job done and will do little to chasten Moscow.
Although it will be difficult to persuade others to turn away tempting business, the unexpected
support Britain is receiving from European Union partners in particular suggests this may be an
opportune moment to convince them that in its experience this money is too toxic to be safe and
that this is a Western, not just a British, problem.
Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing
Putin's work for him . Since 2014, the Russian economy has been in the doldrums.
Furthermore, Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to
see elites stash their money outside his grasp.
Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites
stash their money outside his grasp.
He has launched a "
de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and
minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as
a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31
billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's
$154 billion .
The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be
an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to
undermine the regime in Moscow. Overt efforts at regime change would be dangerous and
likely counterproductive, but London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to
weaken the Kremlin
London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin
, in the hope that this may tame its appetite for playing confrontational
geopolitics.
... ... ...
Mark Galeotti is a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague and a visiting fellow with
the European Council on Foreign Relations.
As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more
tawdry and celebrity-oriented
... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual
encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any
other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after
a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a
part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.
... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's
possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and
the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more
celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that
political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates
debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has
permanently descended to locker-room talk.
"... If the USA empire could have been established and maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the expression for the British empire. ..."
Depends on what you see as bad. If the USA empire could have been established and
maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the
expression for the British empire.
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003,
2007, Chalford -- Stroud
How an important British diplomat saw British control of the greater part of the world as
the natural order of things
Lord Vansittart, 'The Mist Procession, The autobiography of LORD VANSITTART', London
1958
Great pity that death prevented the biography from going furher than 1938.
The machinations of Vansittart during the thirties are described in
Philip M. Taylor, 'The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda
1919-1939′, Cambridge 1981
and Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The ideas of Vansittart's friend Leeper one finds in Sir Reginald Leeper, 'When Greek
Meets Greek', London 1950
He more or less ruled Greece from 1945 to say 1950.
Two reasons for the descent of 'the West' into neo-Nazism stand out. First, the West was
ALWAYS fascistic, racist, hyper-aggressive, destructive, parasitical and genocidal. Just
summon up the shades of the hundreds of millions killed, directly or indirectly, through
Western Imperialism, colonialism, settler genocide and economic exploitation even to the
extent of causing Holocausts of mass death through famine, as in India, and ask them about
the great and glorious West and its stinking 'Moral Values'. Not to forget the tens of
millions of Westerners themselves killed in Western internecine wars, or through class
hatred, or herded into gas-chambers or made to lie in mass graves then be shot along with
their children because they were of the wrong religion, or the same, but they crossed
themselves in the wrong direction. German Nazism simply expressed a rather pure essence of
true 'Western' moral values, and its mission, and many of its personnel and methods, were
simply taken over the USA after WW2.
Of course, the non-Western world was not a collection of lands of milk and honey, but by any
rational calculus Western ideology involves a qualitatively different and incessant
aggression and cancerous expansion, as manifest in that prototypical Western
creation-capitalism. There the lust and capacity for total destruction, as EVERYTHING, living
and inanimate is transmuted into the dead stuff of money, is unbounded, but this planet being
finite, and the exploiters not having yet escaped to bleed alien worlds anew white and
lifeless, capitalism has only succeeded in drowning us on this planet in the waste and filth
of its excesses, of which poisoning we will shortly succumb.
And, second, the rise to global dominance through control of Western politics, fakestream
media and the other brainwashing mechanisms and finance, of the Zionazi elite centred in
Israel, and in the Jewish Diaspora elites, has delivered a final coup de grace to the West,
and hence, the world that the West is now in the process of attacking, everywhere, for the
crimes of not obeying orders from the likes of vermin like Theresa May, John Bolton and the
execrable Macron.
These Zionazi elites are pretty unprecedented in their absolute arrogance and never-ending
demands. Currently they have embarked on a veritable firestorm of hatred, invective and false
accusations in order to destroy Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. If they cannot destroy Corbyn, they
are very happy to destroy UK Labour, because they no longer control it as they did under
their stooge, Blair. The whole stinking process is operating in open collusion with the UK
fakestream media hate-machine, the reeking corpse of the late UK Guardian leading the way.
The Jewish elite grandees leading the onslaught openly declare that it is UK Labour support
for the Palestinians and 'Leftwing policies' and criticism of Israel that is motivating their
typical exercise in Talmudic hatred. So, the work of hundreds of thousands of Labour
supporters invigorated by Corbyn, who have worked, honestly and determinedly, over years and
decades, to attempt to make the UK a better, more decent, society that the filthy dystopia
created by the Tories and Blairites, is to all be destroyed by a tiny cabal of racist
supremacists who see all goyim as their inferiors. A cabal that does not even represent all
Jews, although they typically claim that they do, a favourite tactic of these anti-goyite
thugs. Many Jews support Corbyn, knowing full well that he is a life-long anti-racist, unlike
the Zionazi thugs who traduce him, who are among the vilest racists extant.
This Zionazi thuggery, and numerous other examples like the criminalisation of the BDS
Movement or ANY criticism of Israel or Zionazism, as 'antisemitic', is bound to create a good
deal of hatred in return. But that is PRECISELY what the Zionazi elites WANT-hatred is the
very essence of their existence. Hatred of the Palestinians. Hatred of Arabs. Hatred of
Moslems. Hatred of any goyim that do not share these hatreds, or dare to oppose Zionazism.
These people, and they do only represent a fraction of Jewry, just as the worst of any
community are only a generally small fraction, are the most dangerous and destructive
creatures in existence, in my opinion. They hate Russia for thwarting their ambitions to
destroy Syria as they did Iraq and Libya. They hate China for not ever going to become supine
stooges like the Western kakastocrats. And, as Bibi, Bennett, Sharon, Begin and scores of
other hideous Zionazi psychopaths show, they mix a series of ancient and modern psychoses
into a maelstrom of hatred and destructiveness seen in policies like the Samson Option, the
Oded Yinon Plan and the drive for endless war against their myriad goy enemies, that simply
guarantees Israel's eventual destruction, and that, so they often promise, of us all.
Look beyond the superficial details of the West's hostile actions, and take heart. NOTHING
has changed about the West's intentions to Russia, other than that the pretence is over. West
is full of good people, but the leaderships kneel to a hidden power. It has been that way for
a long time.
The worst possible strategic position was for Russia not to know that, or to be divided by
an enduring pro-west movement.
Russia is now besieged, but it always was, without really knowing it. Now there is
clarity, and the country can unite.
So take heart. Even on this blog, some will not be able to come to terms today, with
West's treachery. As a Serb, I saw it all before, it is not new, it was always there. Russia
was always in the cross-hairs, and now it is their turn again.
There is one chain of command in the west, and it is indeed an empire. If Russia has
awoken from it's naivety, slumber, and need to believe in an imaginary friend, who always had
a hidden knife, then we are good.
I expect every effort will now be made to derail the world cup. Pardon the pun, but it
will be another own goal. Zog showed itself, and we can see its true intentions.
Yes, Russia was naive in it's belief that the US was their 'partner'. I cringe every time I
hear Putin say that. US is NOT their partner, does NOT want Russia to be sovereign, wants
only a vassal Russia, where everything is open to their taking. I'm glad that Putin and many
Russians are now losing some of their naivety and are finally realizing that US does NOT have
Russia's interests at heart at all, but is, in reality, a treacherous, envious rival that
would love to see all Russians bleed and die, if that meant US could take over the land and
assets. The vassal EU and the totally repugnant UK are willing to follow US lead anywhere it
takes them – even like lemmings over a cliff, which is what's happening now. The cliff
is WWIII of which there will be NO winners.
Putin was making an offer when he referred to the 'west' as partners. Take it in that regard.
Putin does not seem to be silly nor naive. But by referring to the west as partners, he was
extending an olive branch and make an offer to the west. That offer has by now obviously been
declined.
I knew the world cup was unlikely when the US was knocked out from qualifying by ..
Guatemala. It was the biggest dive ever in football. No complaints back home from a
cancellation, I thought.
The world cup is proceding as planned. A nuclear war might prevent it, but otherwise its
still on.
Notice that all that's been done is 'diplomatic boycotts'. That's a purely symbolic
measure, and all it means is that Russia won't have to host a group of government officials
who otherwise would take an all expense paid vacation to a futbol tourney.
The English football coach said very openly that he doesn't care what BoJoke says or
thinks. And there is no way the English would withdraw their futbol team. Germany is also
very unlikely to refuse to defend their championship. German fans are highly unlikely to pass
up a short trip to see their team play. And so far even German politicians aren't going the
symbolic diplomatic boycott route. Same with most other EU countries.
What is going on against Corbyn is disgusting, it seems they have gone now in a frontal
attack on all fronts.
It is a sign that something is nearing it's end phase.
The west funded and supported the Russian revolution and installed the communists. Those
communists were also harbored in the west before the revolution. Germany and the U.S. were
financially backing that coup.
This statement explores the strategic significance of major events in
the world starting in February of 2018. Our goal is to precisely situate
Theresa May's March 12–14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass
destruction" hoax using the same people (the MI6 intelligence grouping
around Sir Richard Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning
weapons of mass destruction) which were used to draw the United States into
the disastrous Iraq War. The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves
British agent Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup
against Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation
is aimed at directly provoking Russia while maintaining their targeting of
the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case
makes clear, a certain section of the British elite seems prepared to risk
everything on behalf of their dying imperial system. Despite the hype,
economic warfare and sanctions appear to be the British weapons of choice.
Putin, as we
shall see, recently called the West's nuclear bluff.
With their
Russiagate coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent
Christopher Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal
prosecution, a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the
United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most of the
American establishment. The tool is an intelligence hoax, a tried and true
British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military
intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal who spied for Great Britain in Russia
from the early 1990s until 2004 was poisoned, along with his daughter, on
March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve agent "of a type developed by
the former Soviet Union." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap
between the United States and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian
prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain
for the last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo
Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence,
Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the
Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the
LinkedIn profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his
company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on the Trump dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister Boris Johnson insist there is only
one person who could be responsible for the poisoning, described as an act
of war, and that is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support
this claim. In fact, there is a substantial doubt whether the putative
nerve agent, Novichok, even exists. No plausible motive has been provided
as to why Putin would order such a provocative murder now, ahead of the
World Cup, when the Russiagate coup against him in the United States has
lost all momentum. Rather than following the protocols of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which require that evidence of the
alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May
instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia and whipped up war fever
throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever
more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, just like Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump,
the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise of raw
power. The Anglo- American establishment instructed us, with respect to
Steele:
"trust him, ignore the stinky factless content presented in
this dossier, just note that he is backed by very important intelligence
agencies who could cook your goose if you object."
The same can be
said for Teresa May's crazed assertions now.
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the
Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Sunday Telegraph call
to arms by Allister Heath, who rants:
"We need a new world order to
take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China Such an alliance
would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal
democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts
of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China
Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our
perfect mission."
Across the pond, as they say, a similar
foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials
who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing
Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
As visitors to the LaRouchePAC website know, Russia and China have
embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the
center of all British geopolitical fantasies since the time of Halford
MacKinder. Moreover, China's Belt and Road Initiative now encompasses more
than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever
undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the
future, while neo-liberal economies continue to see their productive
potentials sucked dry by the massive mound of debt they have created since
the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for
implosion. It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is
sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will
bear the major impact of the derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support of peaceful
collaboration with Russia during the campaign and his personal friendship
with President Xi, marked him for the relentless coup against him waged by
the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on
March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new physical
principles which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S.
war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with the vaunted first strike
capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West
sitting on a new financial collapse; its vaunted military superiority has
just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race.
In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R."
In
it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the two superpowers
at the moment when the U.S. had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of
strategic defense. Both Reagan and LaRouche had proposed that the Russians
and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic
defense against offensive nuclear weapons based on new physical principles,
thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine,
"The political foundation for
durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each and all
nation states, and b) cooperation among sovereign states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of
technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and
Russia, in Putin's March 1 address, have set a course to produce
"technological progress capable of being shared in by all," outlining major
infrastructure projects and dedicating massive funding to exploring the
frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in
both his campaign and his presidency, has embraced similar views. The
British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely
different and failing economic system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit,
the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It
is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack dab in the middle of
the Skripal poisoning hoax.
The Coup Against Trump Begins to Be Reversed; British Are Exposed as
Actual U.S. Election Meddlers
On February 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department and FBI
committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance
warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty
British dossier authored by MI6's "former" Russian intelligence chief,
Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian
candidate, a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its
investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official in the DOJ,
that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to
prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the fact of an FBI investigation
of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare
campaign conducted against candidate Trump with the full complicity of
Obama's intelligence chiefs.
1
Peter
Van Buren, "Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S.
Election?" American Conservative, February 15, 2018.
None of
the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ
applications about Carter Page were revealed to the FISA Court in the
filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI
Director James Comey, or current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a
declassified letter on February 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley and
Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice for
criminal prosecution based on false statements he made to the FBI about his
contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills
down the spines not only of Christopher Steele and his British colleagues
but also of those Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that
he would be conducting investigations of the role of the Obama State
Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of
Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations have been widely
reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper: Brennan for widely
promoting the dirty British work product and Clapper for leaks associated
with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work
product. Remind yourself every time you hear media explosions against Trump
by either Clapper (Congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that
the Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or
Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture regime and
Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial assassinations by baseball
card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was
meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration and is the
subject of libel suits in both Florida and London. In the London case, the
British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets Act to protect Christopher
Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition
despite numerous delays and stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on
John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland, and Clinton
operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary
intelligence source while running the U.S. regime change operations in
Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial
meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump. Winer deployed himself to vouch
for Steele with various news publications collaborating with British agent
Steele and his U.S. employer, Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare
operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had
completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it found
"no
collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
Russia."
Its draft final report was to have been provided to the
Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to
declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senators Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Thom Tillis,
called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and
FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation. They particularly focused
on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified
information to the press, and the criminal investigation and case of former
Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight
Chairman Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked
the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired
as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation of McCabe's
actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton
Foundation. McCabe claimed that this was part of a plot against himself,
Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an
actual Washington straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama.
The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor," (i.e.,
lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt media might
claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former
FBI subordinates. They think his lies and other actions disgrace the FBI
and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations, which already unearthed
the texts between former Russiagate lead case agent Peter Strzok and his
mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump
and the need for an "insurance policy" against his election, is expected to
be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the
Strzok/Page texts also reveal that Strzok was a close friend of U.S.
District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court,
took Michael Flynn's guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from
Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President, and thorough discrediting of
the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee dangerously
accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National
Committee, the DCCC, and the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John
Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for
publication. It states, however, that Putin's intervention was not in
support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's intelligence
chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel also salute this
dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats
and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been substantively refuted
by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
In summary, the evidence points to a leak rather than a hack in the case of
the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or
hacks, according to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would
have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the U.S. and the British have
cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating "false flag" cyber war
incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned; Russia and China Continue to Create the
Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites otherwise
suffered through February and March. To the shock of the entire smug Davos
crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears
to have gotten Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table concerning
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been
scheduled for May. The breakthrough was announced by President Trump and
South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the
Russian assembly and the Russian people. Like President Xi's address to the
Chinese Party Congress in October of 2017, Putin focused on the goal of
deeply reducing poverty in Russian society. Xi vowed in October to
eliminate it from Chinese society altogether. In addition, Putin emphasized
that Russia would undertake a huge city-building project across its vast
rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure,
including Russia's digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on
directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He
emphasized that harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of
individual human beings was the true driver of all economic progress. Those
knowledgeable in the West could not help but recognize the suppressed
formulas for continuing economic prosperity advocated by Alexander Hamilton
and advanced by Lyndon LaRouche.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great
infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world, including most
specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent
primitive looting ground for Western interests. Among the recent
breakthroughs is the great project to refurbish Lake Chad, a project known
as "Transaqua," involving the Italian engineering firm Bonifica, the
Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad
Basin Commission, which represents the African countries directly
benefiting from the project.
But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in
the last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various weapons,
developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation of the
ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of color revolutions and NATO
base-building in the former Soviet bloc. The weapons, based on new physical
principles, render U.S. ABM defenses obsolete, together with many utopian
U.S. war fighting doctrines developed under the reigns of Obama and Bush.
Putin emphasized that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were
not separate. Rather, the scientific breakthroughs were based on an
in-depth economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that
Russia's survival was dependent upon marshaling continuous creative
breakthroughs in basic science and the high technology spinoffs which
result, and their propagation through the entire population. He stressed
that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually human
existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with the
physical economy of the earth, and the second and third paragraphs of
Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche
Doctrine:
"The most crucial feature of present implementation of
such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between dominant powers and those
relatively subordinated nations often classed as 'developing nations.'
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are
progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet.
"Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be
in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound
to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of
the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the
fostering of a durable peace between those two powers."
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting out,
insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations based on the
LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a
breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace. No neo-liberal,
post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Mr.
Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant and rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long time MI6 agent
before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private intelligence
firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation.
Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the time Skripal was recruited. He
also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there
was to know about Skripal. Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, according
to his LinkedIn profile, worked for Steele's firm and lived in the same
town as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning
publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves
journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job
against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild
Steele's reputation. A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the
New Yorker
,
as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same
reason. There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning
prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing
research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs, many of
whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover
for intelligence operations. It is also a very violent theater of
operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations
and Russian organized crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former
head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and
fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction, creating the rationale for the disastrous and genocidal Iraq
War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western
elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time frame in which this
black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane
Mayer's account, Steele called this Project Charlemagne, completing his
report in April, 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald
Trump. In his report, Steele claimed that Russia was interfering in the
politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey. He
claimed that Russia was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming
fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial support to favored
politicians." He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine La Pen.
Steele also suggested that Russian aid was given to "lesser known right
wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the
Russians were behind Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying the
European Union.
Aside from Skripal's relationship to the central figure in the British
led coup against Donald Trump, there are questions whether the nerve agent
the British claim was used on the Skripals even exists, and even more
troubling questions for Theresa May's "Russia did it" claim, if it does.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray reports that the British chemical
weapons laboratory at Porton Down, just 8 miles from where the Skripals
were found, is unsure about what substance, if any, was actually involved
in the Skripal poisoning. According to Murray's sources at Porton Down, the
scientists were pressured to say that it was a nerve agent of a "type
developed by Russia." This is supposed to refer to a whole family of
chemical weapons, the Novichoks, which were supposedly produced in the
1980s in a Soviet laboratory in Uzbekistan. This production facility was
completely dismantled by the United States, according to multiple accounts.
Dr. Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at Porton Down as of
2016, and a colleague of the murdered British Iraq War dissident David
Kelly, called the existence of Novichoks speculative, noting that "no
independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such
compounds has been published."
The main account supporting the existence of the chemical weapons cited
by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist named Vil
Mirzayanov who now lives in the United States and published a book about
his work at the Uzbekistan laboratory. In his much-publicized book,
Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to
the Wall Street Journal of March 16, that publicity led to Novichok's
chemical structure being leaked, making it readily available for
reproduction elsewhere. Ralf Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on
the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal,
"The chemical formula has been publicized and we know from publications
from then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense
in the 1980s . I'm sure other countries with developed programs would have
as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the independent
agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by
the British government, certified in September of 2017 that the Russian
government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of
its nerve agent production capabilities. In addition to Mirzayanov, Seamus
Martin, writing in the Irish Times of March 14, posits, based on personal
knowledge, that Novichoks were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs
and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, Novichoks are the product of the mind of a dissident Russian
chemist living in the United States whose formulas have been widely copied
by other countries, according to the press accounts. Porton Downs, the very
laboratory now asserting their existence, stated as of 2016 that even this
published "fact" was to be substantially doubted.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of
the Skripals and a police officer who went to their home. All were made
critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet emergency personnel who
treated the Skripals, allegedly the victims of a deadly and absolutely
lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the
poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB and FSB officer
was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British
intelligence directed oligarch Boris Berezovsky in information warfare and
other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations
against any European politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and
Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the case, which, of
course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced
British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited with a significant role in
public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in
organizing the murder of American journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe
that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in
Britain in mysterious circumstances following the loss of a major court
case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation,
opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush to judgment and
pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian
organized crime as alternative areas for investigation. Had Corbyn added to
that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on
the right track. Corbyn also pointed out that these oligarchs had
contributed millions to May's Conservative party. The reaction by the
British media, May's conservatives, and Tony Blair's faction of the Labor
Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photo-shopped images
of the Labor leader in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin widely
circulated in the news media.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact
show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's
poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture
first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the
anti-Putin Russian oligarchs who service each other, acting on behalf of
British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against
Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire
world in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
Russian foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova commented on the decision on the mass
expulsion of Russian diplomats from EU countries in connection with the position of solidarity
in the case of poisoning ex-Colonel of GRU Sergei Skripal.
"When London leaves the EU, nothing will bind him to obligations within the framework of a
common foreign policy. Want to begin the game closer, I will want to delete. But the remaining
countries in the European Union will be bound by the circular ties of anti-Russian solidarity,
once imposed by the British. Looks like Britain out those counties under "All as one, and all
under one -- the new motto presented by London to Brussels, -- Zakharova explained. -- Brexit
has not been canceled, and the divorce process is in full swing. That means that the country
which leaves the European Union, exploits the factor of solidarity and imposes the remaining
deterioration in relations with Russia."
As reported by Colossal today, Donald Tusk announced the beginning of the campaign of
anti-Russian solidarity of the EU in connection with the "business Skripal". Russian diplomats
will be sent to 14 EU countries, as well as Canada. Earlier, the United States announced the
expulsion of 60 employees of the diplomatic mission of the Russian Federation and the
suspension of the Russian Consulate in Seattle.
The Western liberal order is not in crisis because of Russian disinformation campaigns and electoral interference.
Western democracies must take responsibility for a crisis that, ultimately, is homegrown – nurtured by its leaders' own
failure to confront effectively the challenges of globalization.
MADRID – Four days before the United Kingdom's 1924 election, the
Daily Mail
published a letter purportedly written by Comintern Chairman Grigori Zinoviev, calling on British
Communists to mobilize "sympathetic forces" in the Labour Party to support an Anglo-Soviet treaty and to encourage
"agitation-propaganda" in the armed forces. The letter was found to be fake – forged by anti-Bolshevik White Russians or
perhaps Britain's own secret service – but not before it caused the defeat of the UK's first Labour government.
Today's Russian disinformation campaigns, part of the Kremlin's
hybrid war against Western democracies, seem to have much in common with the infamous Zinoviev letter. But is their
impact really comparable? Would Western democracies really look different today without Russian subterfuge?
According to Gérard Araud, France's ambassador to the United States,
Russian electoral interference and manipulation, if left unchecked, could
pose an "existential threat"
to Western democracies. In other words, an autocrat ruling over an impoverished country
with an oil-addicted economy smaller than that of Brazil is supposed to be capable of bringing down the world's major
democracies.
France's own presidential election last year seems to challenge
Araud's reading. Russia's cyber-campaign against the centrist Emmanuel Macron – meant to aid the far-right candidate
Marine Le Pen – included everything from the publication of baseless claims that Macron is gay to the diffusion of fake
documents claiming that he has an offshore bank account. Yet, today, Macron is France's president, and Le Pen is
struggling to rebrand her party.
This is not to say that Russia cannot be a dangerous spoiler. Nor is
it to diminish the risks of social media warping users' view of reality by facilitating the spread of biased and even
outright false news (though many experts believe that the Internet is far more effective at producing "slacktivism" than
actual political mobilization).
But the Western liberal order is not in crisis because of Russia.
Western democracies must take responsibility for a crisis that, ultimately, is homegrown – nurtured by its leaders' own
failure to confront effectively the challenges of globalization.
The most worrying feature of the 2016 US presidential election was
not the Russian trolls and bots that attempted to sow opposition to Hillary Clinton. Rather, it was that 61 million
American citizens blindly believed the flagrant lies of Donald Trump, the most uneducated and mendacious presidential
candidate in US history. It did not help, of course, that Clinton – enabled by an obstinate Democratic Party
establishment – ran a weak and visionless campaign that ignored the mounting anger of millions of voters who felt left
behind by globalization.
Moreover, it was not Russian President Vladimir Putin who created the
ethical crisis afflicting Western capitalism. That was achieved by US bankers, who, taking advantage of deregulation and
financial interconnectedness, misguided the global economy to the 2008 financial meltdown. US politicians then refused
to implement adequate new banking regulations, much less punish those who had caused the crisis and profited handsomely
along the way. In Europe, similar ethical and political failures in response to globalization have fueled widespread
support for populists of the right and left.
Populist parties once confined to the political fringe did not win
nearly half the vote in Italy's recent election because of Russian disinformation campaigns. They won because of
mounting anger toward a corrupt political establishment that has failed to address major economic problems, from
financial instability to high youth unemployment. Italy's persistent regional inequalities were also on vivid display:
whereas the prosperous north favored the anti-immigrant League party, the more populist Five Star Movement received most
of its support in the poorer south.
Putin may benefit from such electoral outcomes, but that doesn't make
him responsible for them. National politicians – from the Brexiteers to Trump – are the ones espousing divisive
policies, refusing to acknowledge the importance of cooperation and ethics in policymaking, lambasting traditional
elites and state institutions, and praising autocrats, including Putin himself. The campaign slogan of Italy's League
party – "Italians first" – could not be a more direct tribute to Trump's nationalist approach.
Media have served to reinforce these narratives. Yes, Russians have
been found to be behind some of the "fake news" spread via social media. But in the UK, for example, tabloids owned by
Rupert Murdoch and Jonathan Harmsworth, better known as Lord Rothermere, did much more to sow opposition to the European
Union before the Brexit vote.
History, too, has played a role. The Euroskepticism of Eastern
Europe's "illiberal democracies" reflects deep-seated religious and authoritarian traditions, which have impeded these
societies' internalization of the EU's post-modern culture of secular tolerance and universal values. Poland's
combination of fierce anti-Russian sentiment and extreme religious nationalism illustrates this dynamic.
The fact is that the West is beset by deep social inequalities,
reinforced in recent decades by poorly managed globalization. At the same time, its political establishment has become
increasingly disconnected from the public, much as it did in interwar Europe – a development that fueled the rise of
fascism and populist authoritarianism
.
This dynamic is particularly apparent in the EU, where many decisions
are in the hands of a distant and unaccountable bureaucracy lacking in sufficient democratic legitimacy.
Russia does not pose an existential threat to Western democracy. The
Soviet Union represented a far more formidable challenge, and it ended up collapsing under the weight of its own
economic failure. Russia's internal problems – not just economic stagnation, but also demographic decline – are of a
similar scale.
But this does not mean that Western democracy is safe. To protect it,
Western leaders must confront their own shortcomings. That means upgrading institutions, improving democratic
accountability, reducing economic and social inequality, and striving to ensure that globalization works for all.
United front against Kremlin is a coup for Theresa May
Catherine
Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent
The largest mass expulsion of Russian spies from the West is a significant diplomatic achievement for Theresa May at a
time when she could badly use one.
Her failure to persuade Donald Trump to back the Paris climate agreement or make
him see the wisdom of the Iran nuclear deal has undermined Britain's claim to act as a bridge between Europe and the
United States.
Similarly, Brexit means Britain is loosening its bonds with Europe, relinquishing its role in steering the EU's
relations with the rest of the world.
The Russian government called the expulsions "a provocative gesture" and said it would
retaliate in kind, raising the prospect of further tit-for-tat expulsions, as the US and Europe
left the door open for additional measures. The Kremlin said Vladimir Putin would make the
final decision, and the Russian embassy in the US launched a poll on Twitter asking which US
consulate in Russia should be closed.
The US has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian officials who Washington says are spies,
including a dozen based at the United Nations, and told Moscow to shut down its consulate in
Seattle, which would end Russian diplomatic representation on the west coast.
The EU members Germany, France and Poland are each to expel four Russian diplomats with
intelligence agency backgrounds. Lithuania and the Czech Republic said they would expel three,
and Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands two each. Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, Finland, Hungary,
Sweden and Romania each expelled one Russian. Iceland announced it would not be sending
officials to the World Cup in Russia .
Ukraine, which is not an EU member, is to expel 13 Russian diplomats, while Albania, an EU
candidate member, ordered the departure of two Russians from the embassy in Tirana. Macedonia,
another EU candidate, expelled one Russian official.
Canada announced it was expelling four diplomatic staff serving in Ottawa and Montreal who
the Canadian government said were spies. A pending application from Moscow for three more
diplomatic posts in Canada is being denied.
Raj Shah, a White House spokesperson, told reporters Monday that the US expulsions were part
of "a coordinated effort".
He added that Donald Trump "spoke with many foreign leaders, European allies and others and
encouraged them to join with the United States in this announcement".
President Donald Trump has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and the closure of
the Russian consulate in Seattle. It comes in response to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in
Salisbury, which the UK has blamed on Russia. The move follows major diplomatic pressure by the
UK on its allies to follow their lead in expelling Russian diplomats. The Russian embassy in
Washington had previously urged Trump not to heed the "fake news " on Skripal's
poisoning.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Moscow of being behind the poisoning of the
former spy Skripal and his daughter in the town of Salisbury in early March.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Of the 60 diplomats expelled, 12 formed part of the Russian mission to the United Nations.
In a statement, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the 12 Russians in question had "
abused their privilege of residence" in the US and had "engaged in espionage
activities that are adverse to our national security."
In a game of one-up-man-ship, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been blowing the
proverbial bridges between Russia and the western world to pieces in the last several weeks
with comments that have really been beyond the pale. He suggested that Russian President Putin
was the person that gave the go ahead for the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy
in England. He then absolutely blew that out of the water by claiming yesterday that holding
the World Soccer Cup in Russia was akin to Hitler's 1936 Olympics. This last point I personally
took huge exception to, because the fact is the 25 million or so Soviets that died actually
fighting Hitler saved England fro German invasion - an invasion that England would have lost
hands down. In truth, Johnson might just as well of accused modern day Israel of being a Nazi
state. That's just how bizarre Johnson's attack on Russia was. And perhaps more importantly in
the scheme of things, how incendiary the attack was.
What is becoming clear is that the US, and its western allies, are laying the groundwork for
a massive war, perhaps a world war, with Eurasia and its allies in the Middle East. With the
appointment of Bolton on the same day as Trump signed the first trade action against China (and
he emphasized it was the first of many) the signs are very clear. The West is going to war with
the East. The likely initial targets are Syria, and Iran. Any attack on Iran is a declaration
of war on Russia. Iran after all is not just an important ally to Russia, but it sits right on
the border with Russia. In other words, Russia would be pulled into such a war out of
self-defence if for no other reason.
Bearing Russia's position in mind, think back to last week when Russia announced a number of
new generation weapons it stated were untouchable by Western anti-missile capabilities. It is
quite obvious that Russia is attempting to dissuade the West from its intended push against one
of Russia's most strategic interests - Iran. It's also quite evident from Trump's gestures
today that he is completely unmoved by Russia's message. That can only mean one thing - we are
going to war. When I say we, I mean the West. As someone who has served, and the son of a World
War II veteran I am disgusted by Western aggression toward Eurasia. Yes, I said Western
aggression. Have a look around at all the conflicts going on. They're all going on around
Russia's or China's backyard - not so much in the West...
Nobody knows for certain how this
will play its deadly hand out. One thing is for certain, scrapping of the Iran Nuclear
Agreement appears imminent. Also, a reigniting of the Saudi/Iran conflict is sure to follow.
The West will need an easily understandable excuse to attack Iran, and that can only be one of
three things really: an attack on Israel; coming to the aid of Saudi; or a North Korea style
action against Iran having a nuclear weapon once the aforementioned agreement is unilaterally
cancelled.
This won't be a picnic for the West though. Leave a direct conflict with Russia and China
out of the equation for the moment. Consider that a Saudi/Iran conflict, or an Israeli/Iran
conflict would have the affect of tripling oil prices over night. Then consider a massive sell
off on the stock market. Factor in the US Federal Reserves increases in its over night lending
rates. All these things, and quite a few economic problems not mentioned here, would plummet
the Western economies into a cataclysmic spiral. The markets are very jittery as it is, sensing
as they do that things have gone quite far off the tracks. Many people have said to me that
such an economic collapse would cause Eurasia to fall as well, but I always answer that
statement like this: "Remember in 2008 when the market collapsed? China sent 250 million people
home to their villages, without a job, and that was that. There was no revolt, or any social
turmoil. If that happened in the US or any Western economy, there would be civil insurrection
almost over night. Therein lies the difference. While China would be hurt, it can sustain the
blow. The Western world cannot. In other words, a war of economic attrition."
I don't know if there is anything the ordinary citizen can do to forestall this madness - as
one American recently said to me: "all I can do is vote". But, I suggest if you like the world
in one piece and you are concerned about the end of humanity, get out and say something. Be
accountable to yourself, to humanity, and the world. Don't be a sheeple.
I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100%
under CIA control, has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I didn't think it
would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The comments of this
filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have been way below any
line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when he talked about
other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer) Winston
Churchill.
But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment.
"West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it
denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries
powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of
Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here,
especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may
not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with
the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no
way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain.
I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.
Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily.
In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the
Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What
Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air
defence.
Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that
Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists
have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian "novichok" agent.
Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down
had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:
*You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to
find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the
laboratory
So they have the samples
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you
sure?" And he said there's no doubt.*
I knew and had published from my own whistle blowers that this is a lie. Until now I could
not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court
case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the
OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us,
directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said...
Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the
Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they
are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history
doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to
fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.
This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week.
There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in
all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you
overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now
compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you
can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy
blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted
all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what
low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
Litvinenko wasn't
poisoned by Putin - He was likely smuggling the polonium that killed him Ryan
Dawson ANC Report
Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:44 UTC
Boris Berezovsky
Save As we all know Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned by polonium, a rare radioactive
substance. The main narrative blamed it all on Vladimir Putin of Russia. The rationale rested
on little other than because Litvinenko was a Putin critic . This was the quick line in mass
media, and it was on all the typical war propaganda channels.
There are many things wrong with the "Putin did it" story. For one, there is no motive ,
even with Litvinenko being a critic of Russia, he was no threat whatsoever to Putin. The man
worked with Chechen terrorists and the Israeli-Russian oligarchs . But assuming that there was
a sufficient motive to kill him, think about this: Why would Russia use a very rare, very
expensive, and easily traceable radioactive substance to kill him instead of some cheap poison
or just shooting him? Why risk smuggling radioactive material into the UK which is an act of
war?
Yet that is exactly what the UK/US media would have you believe. They want to say that Putin
had someone sneak into the UK with polonium and poison Litvinenko with it. It just isn't
plausible. It's actually absurd.
Alexander Litvinenko who was formerly FSB fled to the UK to avoid court prosecution in
Russia, worked for a shady Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky. Boris Berezovsky just so happens
to be the Israeli-Russian oligarch who lived in London after fleeing the Russian judicial
system for a multitude of crimes too long to list. He was on Interpol's most wanted list. Here
is the grand prize. After the US and UK press branded Putin with the poisoning despite there
being Zero evidence, (something the US is very well known for now) investigators were tracking
down the traces of Polonium in the UK. They detected traces of Polonium at Berezovsky's office
and residence! Now I do not know about you, but in my place of work, and certainly in my house,
I do not have rare radioactive substances. Polonium is not something you just get at the market
or pick up by accident walking through the park.
No experienced mob boss like Berezovsky would be dumb enough to murder an underling in such
a manner either. Therefore his death was an accident. It was mostly likely it was a botched
smuggling operation . Why was he moving such a dangerous substance? Did he need fast cash? Were
they planning to create a dirty bomb? Such a "smoky bomb" would turn the Polonium into powder
and kill anyone who ingested it.
Traces of Polonium were found on the planes that Litvinenko had been on. So I think we can
deduce what happened. He was a mule . The questions remain, why did he have it?, Where did he
get it? What was he going to do with it? Why was it in the offices of Berezovsky and Erinsys
Ltd (Britain's Blackwater)?
The "Putin did it" smear case has never made sense. First of all, the amount of polonium 210
in play would have cost millions of dollars. That amount is too expensive to purchase and too
large to go unnoticed if it were stolen. The only way to obtain such a quantity would be on a
well organized black market that had a connection to a nuclear facility. It would certainly
help organized crime if the nuclear powered supplier they received the Polonium from was not
subjected to international inspections or part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Such a
country, ( Foreign country A ) which denied they even built nuclear weapons for decades, would
certainly also deny selling their Polonium byproduct as well.
Is it possible to hide that from the press? Yes. The media would ignore this for the same
reason the media ignores them stealing nuclear secrets and building hundreds of nuclear weapons
in Dimona, then throwing whistle blowers who took pictures of their warheads, in jail.
Litvinenko was in Israel, where he met Leonid Nevzlin the CEO of Yukos shortly before he
died. If you wanted to buy/steal radioactive material that would be the place. What was he
negotiating with Nevzlin? We learned Alexander had been an informant in a case that led to the
arrest of nine Georgian and Russian Mobsters in Spain, including Alexander Gofstein a lawyer
for Yukos who apparently was laundering money.
The downfall began when Georgian Mob Boss Zakhar Kalashov was arrested in May 2006. The scam
was similar to what the old Five Families of New York had done, when guys like Meyer Lansky
took profits from illegal gambling businesses and funneled them into buying up real estate in
Florida. In the European case, the mob was taking illegal funds and buying up real estate in
Spain as well as making investments into legitimate businesses .
Litivnenko's associates, Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi, who both had met with him the day
of the poisoning, were also both hospitalized. They left traces of Polonium in Hamburg as they
had taken the trip to Germany before meeting Litvinenko. It appears all three were involved in
a smuggling operation, but for who?
Short answer: Russian Oligarch Boris Berezovsky's employee Alexander Litvinenko died from
over exposure to Polonium in a botched smuggling operation. That is why traces of it were at
Boris's house and on the planes Litvinenko was riding to and from Israel. The smear on
Putin/Russia using a highly traceable 10 million dollar poison to kill a critic is about as
plausible and rational as saying we have "British Intelligence" about Niger.... This
transparent bogus lie was a quick and shamelessly sloppy explanation to cover up how and why
this man in the UK had a radioactive poison in his body. Polonium only has a half life of 138
days.
Litvinenko had been in Israel to visit Yukos's CEO, just shortly before he died. And it's an
open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, the only place without nuclear safeguard or
inspections. Traces of polonium were also on the British Airway planes that Litvinenko took to
and from Israel. So they would have the means, location, and the timing fits, but let's just
blame Putin, "The New Hitler" as Neocons have dubbed him?
Why the fuss about a conspiracy claiming that Putin put Litvinenko on a hitlist and poisoned
him? Well as wacky as that story is, it was probably the best they could come up with on short
notice. Boris knew once the police found out how Litvinenko died that there would be a lot of
explaining to do. He also knew that if the investigation went forward that they could find more
of this Polonium on his properties. So they just claimed the KGB was trying to kill them
all.
Some History
This is not the first time that Berezovsky tried to pin a murder on someone else and claim
that all the damning evidence pointing to him was a frame . There are the notorious cases (in
Russia) of Ivan Litskevich and Vlad Listyev.
Ivan Listkevich was the general director of the Omsk oil refinery, easily the best refinery
in Russia. Abramovich and Berezovsky planned to take over the refinery and make it part of
Berezovsky's Sibnef (which it now is). Listkevich resisted. Ivan had outside investments from
LUKoil (10% of the stock) and CS First Boston. So in no way was he threatened to sink. Omsk was
in the best location, had the latest equipment, and was well positioned to continue to soar.
They serviced the biggest oil producers in Russia. Naturally Ivan did not want to be swallowed
by Sibnef. August 19, 1995 Ivan was found drowned in the Irtysh River. I doubt he went there to
swim. Five days later Sibnef (Gazprom) took over . August 24th 1995, using his good buddy
Yeltsin, Berezovsky got a Presidential Decree №872, to order a transfer of all the
state's share in Omsk as well as 4 other companies to Sibnef. Then in 1996 Boris and Roman
privatized Sibnef through a series of Loans-for-Shares' auctions which were a complete scam run
through front companies and offshore banks. Yeltsin approved of it.
The case may leave doubts in the mind until one learns about the murder of Vlad Listyev. In
1994 Boris attacked one of his rivals over control of a media outlet. Part of the attack was
broadcast all over TV and came to be known as "faces in the snow" as Boris's rival's bodyguard
were forced at gun point to lie face down in the snow. Shortly after a 90mph high speed chase
and attacking rival Gusinsky's MOST guards and pinning Gusinsky in his own building, Berezovsky
would take control of ORT (channel 1) through an illegal non-public "auction" and gain a near
media monopoly.
For details on that I recommend reading "God Father of the Kremlin" if you can still find
it. It was written by the senior editor of Forbes in Russian who holds a Ph.D in
Russian history, Paul Klebnikov. For the record Paul Klebnikov was killed after publishing his
book on the Oligarchs , particularly on Boris, who is on the cover. He was shot four times in
Moscow while leaving work and then died in the hospital after getting stuck on an elevator.
After the Gusinsky event, Boris had another problem. Vladislav Listyev. Listyev was probably
the most popular talk show host in Russia and a TV producer. He was a business partner with
Boris but the problem was he was not crooked. As general director of ORT he decided to fix a
multi-million dollar leak in the company and indirect way of Boris paying people off in the Mob
to do dirty work, as well as paying himself by spending money for ads in other companies owned
where he also ran the advertising sales. He had an offer from Sergei Lisovsky to buy up the
sector. Negotiations never went through and Vlad had a different idea.
On Feb 20th 1995 Vlad announced that he would break the monopoly of Boris and Sergei . He
called for a moratorium on ORT advertising until they could work out ethical standards. As you
can imagine that did not make Boris or the rest of the mob happy. Eight days later Boris
personally met with "Nikolai", a mafia boss, and handed him a hundred thousand dollars in cash.
This was witnessed by two police officers who were monitoring the Mob. Prior to that Boris's
lacky Badri offered money to a different gangster but that man was arrested before he could do
what was asked of him and he confessed this in jail. On March 1st the day after Berezovsky paid
a second Mob Boss, Vlad Listyev was shot in the back at the entrance of his home .
Guilty as sin, with a confession against Badri as well as being personally witnessed by two
police, offering another mob boss money, Boris was desperate. He was inches away from being
arrested. Boris's TV network was cut out of government subsidies after the police raided it and
it was subject to bankruptcy. Fellow media giant and friend Ruppert Murdoch promised to invest
in the network and bail him out . How nice. And we all know where Murdoch stands. This
relationship might also explain why Fox News and Sky News in the UK were so blatantly
cheerleading the "Putin killed Litvinenko" conspiracy story.
But here is the real kicker. It is just as outrageous and far fetched as the Litvinenko
poisoning. Boris concocted a story for Yeltsin which was recorded on video tape produced by
Irina Lesnevskaya a producer at ORT and a friend of Yeltsin's wife. The tape claimed that it
was all a big conspiracy against Berezovsky and that the real culprit (who had no motive other
than to frame Boris [apparently able to hire a gun to kill Vlad but not Boris?]) was none other
than bitter rival Gusinsky of Most Bank, whom Boris had already tried to kill once.
Yeltsin was paranoid of Gusinsky's political ambitions and Boris knew this. Boris also
blamed X-KGB and said Vlad was killed by the MOST group, and not the mob he was witnessed
meeting with a week after Vlad was going to break his monopoly. (Sounds like "Iraq moved the
nonexistent WMDs to Syria just to make the US look bad." give me a break) Boris claimed to be
set up because he was loyal to Yeltsin as was his new media outlet.
Yeltsin, ever a partner in cover ups, not to mention a drunk and a thief, got Boris out of
trouble once again by firing the lead investigators in the case, which intimidated others to
drop it. There was a huge public outcry. A TV personality had been killed. ORT created a new
company called ORT advertising with a monopoly to sell ads on commission no less, and the
boss-man chosen was none other than Sergei Lisovsky . Wow, how utterly shameless.
If you can speak Russian or if you can find an English copy of the Boris/Lesnevskaya tape
transcript sent to Yeltsin, it's going to make you very angry. It is about as plausible as
saying Putin risked an act of war with the UK to kill a critic who worked for both a criminal
as well as terrorist.
Who Done It?
So we know what didn't happen. But there still remains a "who done it." The quickest way to
get to the bottom of this is to see who is lying the most and loudest, because that is usually
who has the most to hide .
Remember Anna Politkovskaya? She was killed on Putin's birthday and the alternative press
and the 'mindlessly accepting any conspiracy' types who fell for it, tried to use that
circumstantial "evidence" to blame the murder on Putin.
These are the same types that claim Russia bombed its own apartment buildings to start a war
with Chechnya omitting the fact that the apartment bombing took place five months after the war
has already started, and the "sources" trying to blame the FSB were none other than Boris's
lacky Litvinenko and well known plagiarist David Satter, who wrote for the PNAC co-founders'
Weekly Standard , which gave the world all the bogus lies about Iraq's WMD and
connection to the September 11th attacks. Robert Kagan, the paper's cofounder with William
Kristol, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times calling "Speaking of Iraq" which
pushes every erroneous prewar scare tactic there was. His wife Victoria Nuland is the same
woman who was recorded on the phone saying "F" the EU and openly talking about who would be a
good replacement Prime Minister in Ukraine. She chose Arseniy Yatseniuk, who she called "Yatz"
and he did become the prime minister of Ukraine a month later after the coup. Everything out of
this faction's mouth has been blindly anti-Russian.
There is a huge difference between conspiracy and kookpiracy. Getting away from the
outlandish unsubstantiated claims about Anna's death, let's uncover something factual. Anna
Politkovskaya was the journalist who had published three different articles on how SOMEONE was
testing Polonium on Chechen children . Gee! Where have we seen THAT scenario before? Anna's
articles were published in the Novaya Gazeta in 2006 and she was killed October of
that same year.
The Washington
Post then makes this clever claim. "Leonid Nevzlin, a former Yukos oil company
shareholder and Russian exile currently living in Israel, told the Associated Press in late
November that Litvinenko had given him a document related to a dossier on criminal charges made
by Russian prosecutors against people connected to Yukos. Nevzlin, who is charged by Russian
prosecutors with having organized killings, fraud and tax evasion, claimed Litvinenko's
inquiries may have provided a motive for his poisoning"
Notice who else is in that Washington Post article (Scaramella) and who was
planting the ideas that Putin had killed both Litvinenko and Anna. How crazy is that to use
polonium to murder someone...Scaramella is a rotten one. After Anna's lawyer Stanislav Markelov
was murdered in 2009 followed by the murder of one of her key informants in Chechnya, Natalia
Estemirova the same year, there was a retrial in Anna's case which went to the Supreme Court.
Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov stirred up a public disgust when he said about Anna's
informant Natalia Estemirova on Radio Liberty "She was a woman...who had never possessed any
honor, dignity or conscience."
The prosecution cornered Dmitry Pavliutchenkov a former policeman who in turn confessed
Lom-Ali Gaitukayev was who negotiated the contract killing and behind him he suspected Boris
Berezovsky . Dmitry was sentenced to 11 years in jail. Five men were found guilty in her
murder. Three were the Chechen brothers who had been acquitted in the first trial and they went
to prison. Rustam Makhmudov and Lom-Ali Gaitukayev got life sentences in 2014. Berevsovsky had
died the year before in March of 2013.
The most troubling thing here is not that mob did something illegal or that the Western
press jumped the gun to do a anti-Russian witch hunt. All of that is pretty run of the mill.
It's not even that Israel secretly has nukes and is involved with organized crime. Again, image
my lack of shock. It's not even the multiple murders that are most troubling. The most
troubling part of this story is what the ultimate purpose of that much Polonium was for and why
it was in the UK. The potential for a dirty bomb is enormous. With the current climate of ISIS
and disgruntled youth in Europe joining the mercenary forces to fight Israel's enemies in Syria
and Lebanon, a dirty bomb in the UK is not an unimaginable scenario. Just having such a thing
could also hold leverage over politicians there too. The source of the Polonium should have
been traced and potential sources should also be subject to inspection.
William
Dunkerley on April
30, 2015 12:11 pm The news stream is replete with articles that falsify information in
order to vilify Putin. The Arafat polonium poisoning is an example. But according to a
March 17, 2015 AP report citing French experts, "Yasser Arafat was NOT poisoned by
polonium. Good for AP for exposing that polonium nonsense. It's rare to find these stories
debunked in the Western media. The long-running malicious narrative in Litvinenko saga is
more the norm. The mainstream story is utterly false and without merit. I documented that
in my book "The Phony Litvinenko Murder." Why do people believe all this specious rubbish?
Largely it's a result of a phenomenon called "confirmation bias." I explain that process in
detail in my book "Ukraine in the Crosshairs." The Ukrainian crisis is just one more
example of how Putin's enemies have skillfully taken advantage of confirmation bias to
snooker the masses.
Ryan Dawson on
January 19, 2016 7:49 pm I also debunked the Arafat myth given that there is no way
it would survive so long with such a short half life. Would you like your book to go in
our library ? I'll read
it then maybe we can talk about it.
Mandatum Mandat on February
10, 2016 4:47 am What is your source for the claim that Litvinenko left a radioactive
trail after his trip to Israel? Can't find any discusssion of this claim other than your own
material.
President Donald Trump is preparing to expel dozens of Russian diplomats from the U.S. in
response to the nerve-agent poisoning of a former Russian spy in the U.K., two people familiar
with the matter said Saturday.
Trump agreed with the recommendation of advisers and the expulsions are likely to be
announced on Monday, the people said, though they cautioned that Trump's decision may not be
final. Trump is prepared to act but first wants to be sure European allies will take similar
steps against Russia, aides said.
U.S. officials are working through the weekend to develop a coordinated response with the
Europeans, one of the people said, after British Prime Minister Theresa May this week rallied
support for a tough rebuke.
As early as Monday, a number of European nations also are expected to expel Russian
officials, including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Czech Republic. France and Germany
backed May's call for tougher action, though their exact plans are less clear.
The U.S. considers the diplomats to be spies, carrying out intelligence activities under
cover as embassy staff, one of the people said. Trump's action would follow a similar move by
May, who ordered 23 Russians that she said were spies to leave Britain over the attack on the
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter.
The advisers reached recommendations for a U.S. response to the U.K. attack at a National
Security Council meeting on Wednesday and honed the proposals on Friday. Trump discussed the
issue Friday with U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan, FBI Director Chris Wray, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats,
outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and others, two people said.
All of the people familiar with the discussions asked not to be identified.
Deputy White House Press Secretary Raj Shah told Bloomberg on Saturday, "The United States
stands firmly with the United Kingdom in condemning Russia's outrageous action. The president
is always considering options to hold Russia accountable in response to its malign activities.
We have no announcements at this time."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment.
A battle within the White House over how to best address the provocations of Russian
President Vladimir Putin has been intensifying. The internal divisions flared this week after
Trump congratulated Putin on his recent re-election without first reviewing written guidance
that he not do so, a person familiar with the matter said.
Trump has meanwhile reshaped his national security staff. On Thursday, he announced he would
replace McMaster, who favored a tougher public posture toward Putin, with John Bolton, the
former ambassador to the United Nations who has promoted military action against Iraq, Iran and
North Korea. That move came just a week after the president fired Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, who had also adopted a more confrontational stance toward Russia, and nominated Mike
Pompeo, the CIA director, to replace him.
Congress has pressured Trump to get tougher on Putin and passed legislation in August giving
lawmakers the power to block the president from lifting punitive U.S. measures imposed after
Russia's incursion into Ukraine. Substantively, Washington's policy toward Russia has become
tougher in recent months, though Trump's critics say he has dragged his feet in responding to
Putin's provocations.
Relationship Priority
Trump has agreed to adopt increasingly tough policy stances on Russia. But the president
places a priority on maintaining a personal relationship with the Russian president, won't
publicly attack him, and doesn't see any benefit to the U.S. in confronting Putin in one-on-one
encounters, one administration official said Thursday.
Trump defended his call with Putin on Twitter Wednesday, dismissing those who "wanted me to
excoriate him."
"They are wrong!" Trump wrote. "Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not
a bad thing."
May earlier this month condemned Russia for the nerve-agent attack that critically injured
the former Russian spy and his daughter. A British police officer was also hospitalized. May
said the 23 Russians she ordered to leave Britain were undeclared spies, and she has sought the
cooperation of other countries in her campaign to punish Moscow.
Heather Nauert, a State Department spokeswoman, said on Friday night that "the United States
is considering a range of options to respond to Russia's outrageous actions in the U.K., both
to demonstrate our solidarity with our ally and to hold Russia accountable for its clear breach
of international norms and agreements."
She added that the State Department "doesn't have any actions to announce today."
"... The British press and its political puppets are determined to convince the British public that there is a massive threat from Russia and even that the Kremlin influenced the disastrous referendum vote to quit the European Union, the Brexit debacle. The affair of the spy Skripal has provided much ammunition, and the newspapers have been effective in increasing the level of anti-Russian fervor and intensifying international tension. It's poison, Hitler and out-of-control government ministers that sell British newspapers. ..."
The British government and media continue to proclaim that Russia was undeniably responsible
for the incident, while ignoring the
statement on March 20 by Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the UN's Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, that "the OPCW has deployed experts to the UK and they will
collect some samples." When asked about indications of the origin or type of substance
alleged by the highest British authorities to be Russian, Mr Uzumcu said he "cannot project
the outcome of such technical work," and that analysis will take "three weeks ahead at
least."
Some of the media have attempted to provide objectivity. For example the BBC reported that Skripal "was jailed for 13
years by Russia in 2006. He was convicted of passing the identities of Russian intelligence
agents working undercover in Europe to the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. In July 2010,
he was one of four prisoners released by Moscow in exchange for 10 Russian spies arrested by
the FBI as part of a swap. He was later flown to the UK." The man was a proven spy who had
betrayed his own countrymen, and almost the only person to talk any sense about the matter was
a former British Ambassador to Russia, Tony Brenton, who said that "the fact that [Skripal]
blew a whole range of Russian agents, there may be personal animosities there. In most
Russians' minds he would be categorized as a traitor. There are people there who would be
delighted to see him dead."
But balance and objectivity do not sell newspapers, and neither do they provide headlines
for politicians who are anxious to jump on publicity bandwagons. Enter the colorful British
defense minister
Gavin Williamson who announced that "Putin has made it quite clear that he has hostile
intent towards this country. We've been seeing the build-up of his forces across the Eastern
Front and in terms of what they're doing over many years now -- we have to wake up to that
threat and we have to respond to it." Then on March 15 Williamson
declared that Russia should "go away and shut up," which illustrated the maturity of the
British government's approach to international affairs.
The level of official pronouncements was further lowered by yet another Johnson declaration that "By using a specific
type of nerve agent known to be developed in Russia, it was a sign that no former Russian agent
was immune and no-one could escape the long arm of Russian revenge," and on March 20 he dragged
up the old faithful, Hitler, who is always a winner for attention in the UK. One pontificating
politician
proclaimed that "Putin is going to use it [the World Cup Competition] in the way Hitler
used the 1936 Olympics" and Johnson hastened to chime in and say "I think that your
characterization of what is going to happen in Moscow, the World Cup, in all the venues -- yes,
I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. I think it's an emetic prospect, frankly,
to think of Putin glorying in this sporting event."
Hitler and football are major players in Britain's propaganda war against Russia. Everyone
reads about football, and mere mention of Hitler sends British hearts pounding in patriotic
fervor. What these people don't realize is that insulting Russia by bringing in Hitler is a
sure and certain way of uniting the Russian people in support of their government and
fortifying their present understandable contempt for little Britain. The Russians had some
twenty million civilians
and over ten million members of
the armed services killed in the war begun by Hitler when he invaded Russia in Operation
Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. To in any fashion equate present-day Russia with Hitler's Germany
is obscene, malevolent and preposterous to a degree that appears impossible for the British
government and most of the media to understand.
The British press and its political puppets are determined to convince the British
public that there is a massive threat from Russia and even that the Kremlin
influenced the disastrous referendum vote to quit the European Union, the Brexit debacle.
The affair of the spy Skripal has provided much ammunition, and the newspapers have been
effective in increasing the level of anti-Russian fervor and intensifying international
tension. It's poison, Hitler and out-of-control government ministers that sell British
newspapers.
Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay
sur Cure, France.
A simple question: Where is Julia Skripal, a citizen of Russain Federation, who was taken by
the UK secret services and whisked away to some undisclosed location? There have been no
photographs of either her father (British citizen) and Julia since the odd incident in a city
of Salisbury that is a few miles away from the UK's main lab of chemical weaponry research.
"Porton Down is situated just northeast of the village of Porton near Salisbury, in
Wiltshire, England. a site of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory (Dstl) – known for over 100 years as one of the UK's most secretive and
controversial military research facilities , occupying 7,000 acres." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down
Support the [ISIS] troops [in a war for Israel]!
http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-march-22-2018-syrian-army-gets-control-of-harasta-militants-withdraw/
"Over 40 tonnes of toxic agents have been found in the areas liberated from militants
Damascus has officially confirmed its readiness to assist in any investigation into a
chemical attack in Syria. However, international organizations have refused to cooperate with
the Syrian government, practically conniving with terrorist organizations in their
illegal activity. The Syrian Foreign Ministry pointed out that more than 40 tonnes of
chemical warfare agents have been discovered on the territories liberated from terrorist
s the international community prefers turning a blind eye to the real facts in which chemical
weapons are used in Syria against the government troops and civilians. .."
"... London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London. ..."
"... Instead, a simplistic narrative accusing Moscow has emerged: If a crime appears to target countries or individuals hostile to the Russian government, NATO governments and media conclude within hours that it is self-evident that the Kremlin is responsible. ..."
"... And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks had in fact been created by Washington's own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately cleared. ..."
"... In the Skripal attack, it is unclear how Moscow would benefit. ..."
"... the Skripal attack hands Putin's enemies inside NATO an ideal diplomatic and political weapon to use against him. ..."
"... The benefits flow, rather, to sections of the British and European ruling class who are stoking war hysteria against Russia, and sections of the American ruling elite, particularly around the CIA and the Democratic Party, working with them to discredit Trump as a supposed agent of Russia. The Skripal attack allows these factions to place enormous pressure on rival sections of the European ruling class, notably in the French and German governments, who are calling for a European military policy independent from the United States and closer ties to Russia. ..."
"... Yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States has "full confidence" in the British assessment of the attack -- a statement he implicitly contradicted by then declaring that Russia was only "likely responsible." Despite firing Tillerson shortly after he made those statements, Trump echoed Tillerson's accusation of Russian complicity, declaring, "It sounds to me like it would be Russia, based on all the evidence they have." ..."
"... Porton Down is not a reliable source, however. It has a long record of illegal or covert testing of biological and chemical weapons on British citizens. These include the 1942 contamination with anthrax spores of Gruinard Island, which the British government was compelled to decontaminate in 1986; the unlawful death of Ronald Maddison in 1953 during trials of sarin gas on British servicemen; and the 1963-1975 spraying of biological weapons in Lyme Bay. The British government paid out 3 millions pounds to victims of such tests in 2008, without admitting liability. ..."
The World Socialist Web Site holds no brief for the kleptocratic business oligarchy
that emerged in Russia from the Stalinist bureaucracy's restoration of capitalism in the Soviet
Union in 1991. It cannot be ruled out that a faction of Russian intelligence, acting with or
without the knowledge of President Vladimir Putin, may have poisoned Skripal.
But London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor
established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the
Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did
not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four
years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London.
Instead, a simplistic narrative accusing Moscow has emerged: If a crime appears to
target countries or individuals hostile to the Russian government, NATO governments and media
conclude within hours that it is self-evident that the Kremlin is responsible.
In fact, in international politics, the simple and obvious answer all but inevitably fails
to reveal the complex web of political and economic interests that produce a given event or
policy. Were the Skripal attack to be a Le Carré spy novel, the accusations so far would
likely take up the first 10 pages of the book, after which the real story would unfold over the
next 400 pages. The questions that must be posed in such cases are: what is the credibility of
the accuser, and, above all, cui bono (who benefits from the crime)?
To those who say it is obvious that Russia poisoned Skripal, it is worth recalling the 2001
anthrax attacks in the United States, in which a deadly strain of anthrax was mailed to many US
officials in Washington, killing 5 people and infecting 17 more, shortly after the September 11
attacks. There again, media immediately blamed the attacks on obvious targets of US-UK war
threats -- the Iraqi regime's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its alleged ties to
Al Qaeda. These all proved to be lies, serving Washington's foreign policy interests as it
sought to go to war in Iraq.
And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs
and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in
the attacks had in fact been created by Washington's own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately
cleared.
It still remains unclear to this day which US officials were involved in carrying out the
anthrax attacks. The FBI closed the investigation in 2010 after pinning the blame on another
scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had committed suicide in 2008. However, the US National
Academy of Sciences found in 2011 that the US government did not have sufficient scientific
evidence to definitively assert that the anthrax used in the attacks came from Ivins.
In the Skripal attack, it is unclear how Moscow would benefit. The attack took
place shortly before this weekend's elections in Russia, and as the NATO powers ramp up a
confrontation with Russia over their failed war for regime change in Syria that has seen US
forces attack and kill Russian military contractors in Syria in recent weeks. Rather, the
Skripal attack hands Putin's enemies inside NATO an ideal diplomatic and political weapon to
use against him.
The benefits flow, rather, to sections of the British and European ruling class who are
stoking war hysteria against Russia, and sections of the American ruling elite, particularly
around the CIA and the Democratic Party, working with them to discredit Trump as a supposed
agent of Russia. The Skripal attack allows these factions to place enormous pressure on rival
sections of the European ruling class, notably in the French and German governments, who are
calling for a European military policy independent from the United States and closer ties to
Russia.
Thus, on Monday, former French President François Hollande issued a sharp if barely
veiled attack in Le Monde on his successor, Emmanuel Macron, who is working closely
with Berlin. Asserting that current NATO policy allows Moscow and the Syrian government to
"liquidate its opposition and massacre its own people," Hollande called for a confrontation
with Moscow: "Russia has been rearming for several years, and if Russia is threatening, it must
be threatened."
Yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States has "full
confidence" in the British assessment of the attack -- a statement he implicitly contradicted
by then declaring that Russia was only "likely responsible." Despite firing Tillerson shortly
after he made those statements, Trump echoed Tillerson's accusation of Russian complicity,
declaring, "It sounds to me like it would be Russia, based on all the evidence they
have."
Under these conditions, and after the experience of the anthrax attacks, it must be said
that factions of the British and American states themselves are prime suspects in the Skripal
attack.
London has based its allegations against Russia entirely on the shifting analyses of its
Porton Down biochemical warfare facility, located coincidentally only 10 miles from Salisbury.
Initially, London alleged that Skripal had been exposed to fentanyl, a synthetic opioid more
powerful than heroin. On March 7, however, British officials alleged that the poison was a
nerve gas like sarin or VX, without explaining why Porton Down, a facility that has for decades
specialized in producing nerve gases, failed to correctly identify one after it was used.
On Monday, May alleged that the nerve gas in question is in fact "novichok," a special
chemical weapon initially produced by the Soviet government. However, London has refused
Moscow's requests to actually provide it with samples of the substance used in the Salisbury
attack for analysis, as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As of now, at least,
the case against Russia is based on the say-so of the Porton Down facility.
Porton Down is not a reliable source, however. It has a long record of illegal or covert
testing of biological and chemical weapons on British citizens. These include the 1942
contamination with anthrax spores of Gruinard Island, which the British government was
compelled to decontaminate in 1986; the unlawful death of Ronald Maddison in 1953 during trials
of sarin gas on British servicemen; and the 1963-1975 spraying of biological weapons in Lyme
Bay. The British government paid out 3 millions pounds to victims of such tests in 2008,
without admitting liability.
None of the allegations directed by such sources against Russia on the still-murky Skripal
poisoning case have a shred of credibility. Only a full, objective international public
inquiry, whose findings are published in real time as the inquiry progresses, can establish the
truth of what took place. In the meantime, it is a critical measure of self-preservation for
workers in America, Europe and around the world to oppose the ruling elite's stoking of war
hysteria against Russia and the danger of an all-out confrontation between the world's main
nuclear-armed powers.
Does provide a plausible alternatvie explanation. Given the recent elevation of Bolton and
the EU acceptance of the May claims it is likely that we are entering a period similar to
that of June 1914 when Europe commenced sleepwaling toward war.
If you find the above to be a credible explanation then please provide it to others so
they may realize their government may not be acting in the best interest of the public.
The article is reposted at Craig Murray request, as his site was at the time under denial of
service attack: "This website remains under a massive DOS attack which has persisted for more
than 24 hours now, but so far the defences are holding. Some strange form of "ghost banning" is
also affecting both my twitter and Facebook feeds. So please (a) Feel free to repost, republish,
translate or spread this article anywhere and anyway you can. All copyright is waived.
Notable quotes:
"... The emphasis is mine. This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a "Novichok", as opposed to "a closely related agent". ..."
"... This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying – to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people – about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased. ..."
"... It does not take a degree in chemistry to understand that something related to a class can be half of all poisons in the world. ..."
"... A closely related agent" has no precise scientific meaning. It could mean "in the same chemical class" as Novichok but of indeterminate chemical structure at this time; or it could mean having the same toxicological effect as novichok, but not necessarily in the same chemical class (although this could refer to mode of synthesis, rather than of structural type). ..."
"... In either case, what it means is that they do not know the precise molecular structure of the agent concerned – and iif they don't know that, they cannot sign it to Russia – or anyone else. ..."
"... The statement to the Court proves beyond any credible argument that the UK Government are simply lying, either to the court, or to the rest of us. ..."
"... 'This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. An Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to independently confirm this analysis.' Or, to put it another way, the task of the OPCW is NOT to conduct an independent analysis, but to AGREE WITH 'our specialists'. ..."
"... What's a "related compound"? Could it be something as ordinary as sheep dip or weedkiller? Could they be described as "nerve agents", even if they're not usually thought of in that sense? ..."
"... If the Skripals really are in a Salisbury NHS hospital then It's safe to conclude that no nerve agent was involved at all. This is because of the comments of the consultant and the the fact that they're still alive ..."
"... Could it be argued that all nerve agents are "closely related" and then speculated that the wording of the testimony was arrived at in a way of compromise between the scientist(s) and the government? ..."
"... Also, do we know if the blood sample was taken from the police officer who (it would appear) made sudden recovery? Can him being discharged from hospital be seen as a way to avoid giving the blood sample? ..."
Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that
Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists
have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian "novichok" agent.
Yesterday in
an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down had told him
they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to
find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down,
the laboratory
So they have the samples
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you
sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
I knew and had published from my own
whistleblowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can
absolutely prove it, due to the
judgement at the High Court case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken
from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of
the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually
said:
The Evidence
16. The evidence in support of the application is contained within the applications
themselves (in particular the Forms COP 3) and the witness statements.
17. I consider the following to be the relevant parts of the evidence. I shall identify the
witnesses only by their role and shall summarise the essential elements of their
evidence.
i) CC: Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst
Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated
exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence
of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.
The emphasis is mine. This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly
incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not
even positively identified this as a "Novichok", as opposed to "a closely related agent".
Even if it were a "Novichok" that
would not prove manufacture in Russia , and a "closely related agent" could be manufactured
by literally scores of state and non-state actors.
This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying
– to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people
– about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack
originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As
the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local
elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased.
On a sombre note, I am very much afraid the High Court evidence seems to indicate there is
very little chance the Skripals will ever recover; one of the reasons the judge gave for his
decision is that samples taken now will be better for analysis than samples taken post
mortem.
"findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested
positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT."
Yes, they're not even saying it was a nerve agent, much less in the Novichok class of
fluorophosphates, much less which among those hundred+ compounds. That fits with the
Salisbury Hospital emergency room doctor's letter to The Times in which he states exactly 3
people have been treated there, all for poisoning, with none receiving antidotes for nerve
gases. I wondered about that at the time, why not say Novichok-5 like in the fume hood
accident at the Russian chemical warfare plant (which was treatable with atropine).
Here is the attending physician saying not only is the 41 bystander bit complete hooey but
"no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury" though the 3
were "significantly poisoned". By what, if not a nerve agent, maybe norborene or strychnine?
The latter "causes poisoning which results in muscular convulsions and eventually death
through asphyxia."
March 16 2018
The Times
Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", Mar
14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in
Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several
people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None
has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have
shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent
involved.
Stephen Davies
Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
In a letter to The Times Dr Davies writes that no patients experienced symptoms other than
the three with "significant poisoning". "Several people have attended the emergency
department concerned that they may have been exposed," he adds. "None has had symptoms of
poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality.
No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved."
The Guardian, flip-flopping daily between uber-patriotic chest-thumping and skepticism,
actually ran a well-researched article today
Andrew Roth and Tom McCarthy Thu 22 Mar 2018 05.00 GMT
"Before former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia collapsed on a park bench in
Salisbury on 4 March, the only other person confirmed to suffer the effects of novichok was a
young Soviet chemical weapons scientist Circles appeared before my eyes: red and orange. A
ringing in my ears, I caught my breath. And a sense of fear: like something was about to
happen," Andrei Zheleznyakov told the now-defunct newspaper Novoye Vremya, describing the
1987 weapons lab incident that exposed him to a nerve agent that would eventually kill him.
"I sat down on a chair and told the guys: 'It's got me.'"
The Court evidence said @17.V ZZ: Treating Consultant.
a)Mr Skripal is heavily sedated following injury by a nerve agent.
b)Ms Skripal is heavily sedated following injury by a nerve agent.
This differs from the Porton Down evidence 17 i) CC: Porton Down Chemical and Biological
Analyst
Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated
exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence
of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.
Why isn't the Consultant more precise since he must have been given the exact Porton Down
evidence in order to treat them.
no wonder your website is under attack there are those opposed to letting the truth slip
out.. they are some of them.. boris needs to be taken out to pasture
Has Nick Bailey been asked to give the OPCW a new blood sample? Surely he should be asked.
At least there is no consent issue, since he has recovered sufficiently to be discharged from
hospital and he is fully able to give his consent or withhold it if he wishes. He probably
has been asked, and there is no reason why taking a sample from him should have been
mentioned in the judgment about taking samples from the Skripals, but I would still like to
know.
I hope people do circulate this post by Craig as widely as they can. But note that it is
not only Boris Johnson who has directly lied. Theresa May has also directly lied – and
in her case, she has lied to the House of Commons. By parliamentary convention, a minister
who has lied to the House should RESIGN, as John Profumo did in 1963.
If Jeremy Corbyn wishes to rise to the moment, he must at the earliest opportunity, which
is to say TOMORROW, bring the matter of these lies to the House of Commons. He must directly
accuse the prime minister of lying to the House and call on her to resign .
He should also call for Boris Johnson to come to the House and explain why he lied to
Deutsche Welt.
Boris Johnson a liar???? Whoever would have think that?
Pardon my sarcasm. This is important and irrefutable evidence that the UK Government are
twisting the facts to suit an agenda that is not in the interests of the general populous,
but aimed at retaining their tenuous grip on power. That has always been the Conservative
policy – get into power and stay in power at any price. They don't have any answers to
the problems the UK or wider world faces. They are not even looking for answers. Any solution
would erode the privilege and security of their cronies and masters.
BTW – I don't have much less contempt for the other political parties. But the
Conservatives are the most contemptible/despicable at the moment. Maybe we could start
referring to the the robotic Ms May as the Contemptible Party Leader? Leader of the
Contemptibles? Etc.
i know that it is pointless, but let me explain something that should not need to be
explained. If HMG really identified the nerve agent used in Skripal poisoning then its
submission to court would have said: the nerve agent A-2617 was identified .
Instead, HMG submitted: the nerve agent of the class Novichok and then broadened it
even beyond class to "or closely related agent".
It does not take a degree in chemistry to understand that something related to a class
can be half of all poisons in the world.
Perhaps we will hear from Boris now that the secret intelligence that only he is privy to
proves that Lucretia Borgia has been a secret Russian agent with a license to kill.
" A closely related agent" has no precise scientific meaning. It could mean "in the
same chemical class" as Novichok but of indeterminate chemical structure at this time; or it
could mean having the same toxicological effect as novichok, but not necessarily in the same
chemical class (although this could refer to mode of synthesis, rather than of structural
type).
In either case, what it means is that they do not know the precise molecular structure
of the agent concerned – and iif they don't know that, they cannot sign it to Russia
– or anyone else.
But indeed, even if they did have a precise chemical structure, given that the synthetic
processes have been published, even then they could not in any scientifically meaningful
sense, ascribe its synthesis to Russia – or anyone else.
The statement to the Court proves beyond any credible argument that the UK Government
are simply lying, either to the court, or to the rest of us.
"I don't think anyone is disputing that it was 'produced in Russia' originally." That's
disputed. By the OPCW. So, there was a program to attempt to develop these theoretical
weapons in the Soviet Union (Uzbekistan) No evidence that the program was successful
according to OPCW.
'This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. An Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to independently confirm this
analysis.' Or, to put it another way, the task of the OPCW is NOT to conduct an independent
analysis, but to AGREE WITH 'our specialists'.
You've got them rattled Craig. Already the story is no longer screaming headlines, just
faded mentions, even in the Daily Heil.
The nice part is that the British establishment may yet see blood running in the street.
Theirs, if they loose control of the narrative!
Who can forget the rabbit-caught-in-the-headlights look of fear on Boris's face the
morning after Brexit vote. – Boris booed and jeered as he leaves his house after
Brexit, 24 June 2016 – Urban Picture UK – Youtube – – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EtnpulrIg
In the 90's young Boris used to write Eurosceptic articles for the Sunday Telegraph
– really hard hitting pieces of writing, or so it seemed. Then along came Sir James
Goldsmith's Referendum Party, a political organisation perfectly suited to Johnson's rhetoric
you would have thought, except it wasn't: as soon as the new party appeared BoJo suddenly
changed his tune – all of a sudden leaving the EU became a very bad idea with Goldsmith
being described as a dangerous demagogue and readers were warned in no uncertain terms not to
vote for him. It was as if Boris was taking orders from someone above.
The Skripals are both in a coma in hospital after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury and
therefore unable to give their consent to blood samples being taken or tested. A judge has
given doctors permission to take blood samples from the former Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, so that tests can be carried out by chemical weapons
experts.
How come Doctors had to wait so long? Doctors have been given the legal right to take
blood samples from unconscious or incapacitated drivers without their consent. The change
– under the provisions of the 2002 Police Reform Act – comes into effect on
Tuesday. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2288574.stm
A spokesperson for the Home Office said the provision, which took effect Oct. 1, gives
doctors "a power, but not a duty" to take the samples. The British Medical Association (BMA),
which had urged the government to change the law, has issued guidelines for MDs. It says
there should be "a clear separation between the 'CLINICAL' care the patient is receiving and
any forensic procedures with which patients are asked to cooperate." Dr. Michael Wilks, chair
of the BMA's Ethics Committee, says the association rarely supports taking samples without
patients' consent, but in this case there is "a clear public interest" in having it done. He
also pointed out that the law would help clear the names of some drivers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC140489/
How much more of a public interest is it to save two peoples lives?
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analyzed and the findings
indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the
presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT."
What's a "related compound"? Could it be something as ordinary as sheep dip or
weedkiller? Could they be described as "nerve agents", even if they're not usually thought of
in that sense?
As for Johnson. I've watched his lies and obfuscation connected with the idiotic Garden
Bridge project for the last two years. Some £46 million of public money was wasted on
that because of him, never mind the disastrous Heatherwick new bus for London, the Dangleway,
the Arcelor Mittal Orbit, the dodgy deal about West Ham getting the Olympic stadium. He has
no conscience. He does not give a damn about anything other than Boris Johnson.
In a German TV disscussion programme last night, Anthony Glees was calling for a boycott
of the World Cup in Russia and actually said:
"Boris Johnson would not have accused Putin if he didn't have any proof". ( Glees' is quoted
in German here: https://twitter.com/maischberger/status/976580438222360576
) He should try that line on a British audience, especially a London one.
The doctors could have taken the blood of the Skripals on 4th of March and helped to save
their lives see my comment above. If they die, could this be manslaughter?
"c) The main consideration ought to be the beliefs and values that would be likely to
influence the decision if Mr Skripal or Ms Skripal had capacity. An individual subjected to
such an attack with personally catastrophic consequences would want to see it fully and
properly investigated and that all appropriate steps to identify the perpetrators (individual
and state) have been taken so that they can be held to account."
A 'full and proper investigation' into the Salisbury incident would HAVE to include the UK
government's agreement to supply Russia with blood samples from Mr and Ms Skripal, in
accordance with CWC procedures and with Russia's request in keeping with those procedures. As
Russia alone hold the formulaic records by which to accurately measure the toxic type in the
Skripals blood (should those toxins be Russian in origin), any investigation which excludes
Russian participation can in no way be considered as "fully and properly" conducted.
Furthermore, any effort to second-guess and thereby disregard whatever results a Russian
participation may provide to an investigation can only be considered as an attempt against
its 'full and proper' conclusion.
If the Skripals really are in a Salisbury NHS hospital then It's safe to conclude that
no nerve agent was involved at all. This is because of the comments of the consultant and the
the fact that they're still alive
Could it be argued that all nerve agents are "closely related" and then speculated
that the wording of the testimony was arrived at in a way of compromise between the
scientist(s) and the government?
Also, do we know if the blood sample was taken from the police officer who (it would
appear) made sudden recovery? Can him being discharged from hospital be seen as a way to
avoid giving the blood sample?
"... Ultimately, Britain is not a factor in foreign affairs. Having withdrawn from the EU, they've vanished up the USA's asshole. The US controls their Fisher-Price nuclear deterrent and their increasingly atavistic veto. ..."
"... The determining geopolitical factor is Russia's missile announcement. It re-established MAD, but that's not all. It also created a capability for proportional response to the entire range of US force that effectively counters all US use and threat of force. ..."
Interesting detail about illegal British war propaganda in breach of ICCPR Article 20. Of
particular note is the report of Pompeo's role in the blame game for the failed provocation.
Ultimately, Britain is not a factor in foreign affairs. Having withdrawn from the EU,
they've vanished up the USA's asshole. The US controls their Fisher-Price nuclear deterrent
and their increasingly atavistic veto.
The determining geopolitical factor is Russia's missile announcement. It
re-established MAD, but that's not all. It also created a capability for proportional
response to the entire range of US force that effectively counters all US use and threat of
force. There's no more game of chicken. Russia can discipline the US with localized
humiliation and global rout without recourse to mutual destruction.
The Russian program of coercion to peace is already taking effect:
In these talks, Russia is in a position to impose not just nuclear disarmament but
demilitarization. They've turned the clock back to the Eisenhower/Herter peace plan. That is
a very good thing.
"MS NAUERT: Yeah. Okay. So, as many of you know, Russia – yeah, I think it was
yesterday – said that this could have come – the poisoning could have come from
yet another country, which is ridiculous. I mean, we put out a statement about that, saying
that is a joke that it could have come from another country. We've seen Russian claims like
this before, when Russia claimed not to be responsible for its little green men in Ukraine,
where Russia claimed to not be responsible for the downing of the Malaysian Air flight in
2014 over Ukraine. We've seen Russia continue to perpetuate the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
They make a lot of claims. I think it's pretty clear we stand by the Brits, as do many other
countries, that Russia's responsible for this."
Also on Thursday, the media reported that Moscow can reveal the identity of spies sent as
part of 23 employees of the British Embassy in Russia after the announcement of persona non
grata Russian diplomats in London.
Elena Vrach , 1 hour ago
Yes, there is a question the despite equal number of expelled diplomats, the level of
damage is different and is higher for Britain. Because ironically, EVERYONE assumes that
British authorities expelled Russian diplomats as a part of propaganda circus "Oh Oh Oh
Novichok".
But on those who were expelled by Russia there is a stamp "MI6" because for Russia it does
not make sense to resort to propaganda action -- they expelled those who really were harmful
for their security trying to decimate British MI6 capabilities in their country -- and that
means that all or most of expelled are iether undercover agents of MI6, or are closely
connected with MI6.
Which means effectively the end of their career as MI6 undercover agents. Which is one of
the unanticipated effects of this round of Skripal scandal...
It would be funny if WikiLeaks soon publish some list with their positions in MI6.
My own country is looking particularly shabby at the moment, over a number of topical news
stories:
The alleged Salisbury attack, and in particular the disgraceful and shameful British
government response to it and the lockstep backing for it by the establishment media. Rush to
judgement, childish government and diplomatic ranting, Iraq War-style manipulation of
seemingly laughably inadequate evidence to "fit the facts around the policy", massive
jingoistic propaganda effort.
Intelligence and security community involvement in the manipulative anti-Trump hysteria in
the US.
Now, the related Cambridge Analytica/SCL Elections story and the comical performance in
presumably giving time to cover up information on that company's servers with a convenient
court delay in issuing a search warrant:
The information commissioner will have to wait until at least Friday to enter the
offices of Cambridge Analytica after a high court judge adjourned the hearing into her
application for a warrant.
The commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, announced on Monday night that she planned to
request an urgent warrant to enter the company's London offices, after it was revealed that
it had been given information from 50m Facebook profiles without users' permission.
.
On Tuesday, crates were seen being removed from the central London office that Cambridge
Analytica shares with other tenants. No one on the scene would comment on the origin of the
crates, and the ICO said it was not involved in their removal.
The effectiveness of US sphere establishment media propaganda can be judged from the
widespread belief that Russia was likely responsible for the alleged attack in Salisbury,
when in reality the case against Russia is almost literally
non-existent . One survey suggested as few as 26% even questioned the state approved and
propaganda-imposed version (poll conducted 14th/15th March):
"... I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the 1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet. ..."
"... Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the Olympics. ..."
"... I just thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0 ..."
I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I
knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the
1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence
agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet.
Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the
Olympics. I already have my tickets for England v Panama in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as
a second round match in Moscow.
I don't care much for the Olympics, although I do like the Winter Olympics. I just
thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just
seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the
event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is
probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0
"... They mentioned although the Turkish officials have said they are ready to help evacuation of al-Nusra Front (Tahrir al-Sham Hay'at or the Levant Liberation Board) terrorists from Eastern Ghouta to take them to Idlib, this seems to be a cover as they really mean to rescue their special foreign forces that among the ranks of the Al-Qaeda-affiliatetd Al-Nusra in Syria. ..."
"... According to the sources, a sum of 960 foreign agents have so far been transferred to these specific regions after the terrorist groups allowed evacuation of civilians on March 15... ..."
"... It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest that UN personnel are leaving Damascus.... ..."
"... Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they will respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the missiles were launched ..."
"The sources said that after the army's expanding march in Eastern Ghouta and failure of
the US-Israeli plot to conduct an effective offensive on Damascus, the US command center
has rushed to to evacuate allied militants and agents operating for Israel, Jordan and NATO
from the region.
They mentioned although the Turkish officials have said they are ready to help
evacuation of al-Nusra Front (Tahrir al-Sham Hay'at or the Levant Liberation Board)
terrorists from Eastern Ghouta to take them to Idlib, this seems to be a cover as they
really mean to rescue their special foreign forces that among the ranks of the
Al-Qaeda-affiliatetd Al-Nusra in Syria.
Therefore, the US has ordered Jeish al-Islam, Faylaq al-Rahman and other terrorist
groups to allow evacuation of civilians from Eastern Ghouta to army-held regions in a bid
to provide the ground for these foreign agents to also leave Ghouta in disguise and enable
the Turkish intelligence service to send them to specified regions in al-Tanf and Northern
Syria which are under the control of the US troops," they
.... According to the sources, a sum of 960 foreign agents have so far been
transferred to these specific regions after the terrorist groups allowed evacuation of
civilians on March 15... ."
"According to reports, terrorists stationed in Al-Tanf received 20 tons of chlorine gas
and detonators, disguised as cigarette packs, in order to attack in an area under the control
of the terrorists that is densely inhabited by civilians. ...
It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom,
France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to
interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign
journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave
the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest
that UN personnel are leaving Damascus....
Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they
will respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the
missiles were launched ."
Am I correct in assuming that the long-term US/UK/Israel plan is to use false-flag events
blamed on P (spy poisonings, election tampering, MH17, Syria poison gas, etc.) to force R off
the UNSC, then set up a Rus gov in exile (similar to the ploy used recently to steal Libyan
cash), transfer the UNSC role to the exile Rus gov, and with all this to give the Rus elite
sufficient political cover at home to "take out" an ever-popular P, by any means necessary?
Concurrently, a Syria false-flag gas attack is blamed on P, missiles launched on Syria to
make sure Rus sinks a few Anglo warships and a few thousand expendable sailors are sunk, (as
Ukraine warring restarts) then the open warfare, limited to the Med, with UK/US/Is certain
they can outlast Rus, who will be stunned into surrender by the use of limited yield
nukes?
Are the warmongers overplaying their hand? I keep seeing references to hair-on-fire
hysteria of the elite doorkeepers being due to them seeing this trap in the Med as the last
chance to take Rus out in a bid to try to save the NWO project.
Because we all know the State Dept. is expert in hiring and directing jihadis to do dirty
work. Thank heaven the CIA saved us!
...The whole thing smells like a dead fish.
The part about Porton Down getting creative with sarin samples' chain of custody has been
alleged before, and I suppose State could have asked Britain to use its mercs to pull off an
event.
However, since Sy Hersh points out embedded people were explicitly warned about the Apr
'17 conventional attack ahead of time for their own safety (and the Syria plane cleared its
mission with the Deconflict folks, and knew all along it was being tracked), the likelihood
that a different group pulled the current sandbagging job must be considered.
So, fair question: Does State have its own intel / black operations team? Thought it was a
consumer not producer.
The part about Porton Down getting creative with sarin samples' chain of custody has been
alleged before, and I suppose State could have asked Britain to use its mercs to pull off an
event.
However, since Sy Hersh points out embedded people were explicitly warned about the Apr '17
conventional attack ahead of time for their own safety (and the Syria plane cleared its mission
with the Deconflict folks, and knew all along it was being tracked), the likelihood that a
different group pulled the current sandbagging job must be considered.
So, fair question: Does State have its own intel / black operations team? Thought it was a
consumer not producer.
"Russia did it" is a meme designed to scapegoat Russia to cover the Democrat's Asses for
losing the 2016 election, and to enable continuation of the Forever Wars since the fall of
Raqqa.
Facebook user data was fed into the analytics system that enabled Cambridge Analytica and the
Trump campaign to effectively target voters at a minimal budget. They won Donald Trump the
swing states and the election.
It wasn't the Russians, it was our own social media companies who sold user data to the
Trump campaign which convinced liberals not to vote in swing states.
From what I learned about this Skripal affair and what we're expected to believe -- i.e., the
official U.K. government version -- is ludicrous. Farcical. I'm talking Fargo and
Burn After Reading kind of farcical. And is anyone a little alarmed that the same
Monty Python-esque goofball is behind the attempted subversion of Trump's election in
collusion with U.S. Deep State with a ludicrous 'Golden Showers' dossier was also the U.K.'s
weapon to subvert FIFA and Russia in the World Cup and was an associate of Skripal.
"... The UK has a long record of misdoings, he said, including the support of coup in Ukraine and the invasion of Iraq. "This is like talking to overweight alcoholics and drug users that have lost any sense of dignity." ..."
"... Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at the same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The conspirators' intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of its capital city and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential election. Had these manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to bomb Damascus, including the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations General Assembly exclude Russia from the Security Council. ..."
"... However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being plotted. They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack against the Ghouta were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency. ..."
"... And there's the additional evidence that some kind of False Flag attempt fell apart at Eastern Ghouta + Trump's discovery that the Deep State was planning to take him by surprise (the immediate dismissal of Tillerson). ..."
Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, wrote a draft resolution invoking Article 5 in
the Washington treaty -- the famous 'musketeer clause' -- as a consequence of the terror
attacks: "The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from
abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
There was a reservation. Article 5 would not be formally activated before "it is
determined that this attack was directed from abroad". Apparently, NATO had a suspect. But
the forensic evidence was still pending, and hence also the formal invocation of Article
5.
Formally, this evidence was provided by Frank Taylor, a diplomat with the title of Ambassador
from the US State Department . The first bombs fell in Kabul on 7 October 2001 [the
slaughter of civilians by the US/NATO had begun].
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty emphasises the right to self-defense and reads:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, ." That is,
military action is forbidden in the absence of an armed provocation , and the legality
of the attack on Afghanistan depends exclusively on the evidence presented in Frank Taylor's
report. But it was classified together with the minutes from the pertinent
meetings.
We are still at war seventeen years later. Five countries have been destroyed, hundreds of
thousands of people killed and millions displaced. Refugees are swarming the roads of Europe,
trillions of dollars have been spent on weapons and mercenaries and our grandchildren have
been shackled with endless debt."
-- Oded Yinon plan' fanatics, oilmen, banksters, MIC, "ambassadors," "lords," and "elected
leaders of the free world " -- None of the war criminals has been punished. Guess, their
children and grandchildren will be paying for the scoundrels' cowardice and lies.
"The Day, a news website that produces short articles about current affairs meant to be
used as teaching aids in British schools , has offered students two alternatives to
believe about Vladimir Putin: he is either Europe's "most dangerous leader since Hitler," or
a puffed up figure attacking other nations out of weakness."
-- Was it a Friend of Israel that has concocted the definitions?
"Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko has held a press conference in London, denying the
Kremlin was involved in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using
military-grade nerve agent.
"Britain has without any evidence blamed Russia for poisoning three people and continues
to refuse to cooperate," he said.
The UK authorities are violating Vienna Convention by not giving Russia access to
Skripals, because Skripal has dual citizenship (the UK and Russia), Russian Ambassador to the
UK Alexander Yakovenko said.
The Russian embassy has immediately requested details and materials of the case, the envoy
stated.
While 10 days have passed, Moscow has received no response, while London has refused to
pass samples of the poisonous substance allegedly used to attack Skripal.
Then Yakovenko turned a little darker, seemingly indicating concerns that this was nothing
but a false-flag operation (via SputnikNews)
The envoy called for checking how could British experts find out the exact type of the
nerve gas used to poison Skripal . [Good question!]
Commenting on the death of former top manager of Russian Aeroflot airline Nikolai
Glushkov, the ambassador stated that "we cannot take Britain's words on trust."
Alexander Yakovenko said that Britain has provided no proof of Russia's alleged
involvement in the nerve agent attack.
He suggested that the samples of the so-called Novichok nerve gas could have already been
in possession of a laboratory, which is located just miles away from Salisbury .
"We have been refused consular access to our Russian citizen Yulia Skripal ,"
Russian Ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said.
The UK is ignoring requests on case of Russian businessman Glushkov who died in London,
ambassador stated.
Russian experts puzzled how UK managed to determine type of nerve gas in Skripal
case, in days, but not weeks or months.
The UK has a long record of misdoings, he said, including the support of coup in
Ukraine and the invasion of Iraq. "This is like talking to overweight alcoholics and drug
users that have lost any sense of dignity."
Boris Johnson [the self-proclaimed "passionate Zionist") compared Russia's hosting of this
year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. Russians respond: "Nobody has the
right to insult the Russian people, who defeated the Nazis."
"The US special forces deliver 20 tons of chlorine gas to Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria
order to execute a false flag for the purposes of blaming Damascus and Moscow."
"It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom,
France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to
interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign
journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave
the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest
that UN personnel are leaving Damascus.
This could be psychological warfare, or it could be a prelude to war. With the stakes so
high, we cannot afford to ignore any detail, even if it may be disinformation. The American
attack seems imminent, with mounting signs of movements of American and Russian warships in
the Mediterranean in attack formation.
Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they will
respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the missiles
were launched. Things are getting pretty dicey, and the risk of a direct confrontation
between the United States and the Russian Federation are rising with every passing hour. The
transfer of numerous US aircraft from Incirlik, Turkey, to Al-Azrak, Jordan, is another
indication of preparations for an attack, since the forces moved to Jordan are close to the
Al-Tanf base. The proposed strategy could involve an assault on the city of Daraa, for the
purposes of securing the borders between Syria and Jordan and Syria and Israel.
The warnings raised by Lavrov and Gerasimov appear unprecedented, given that they detail a
plan already set in course, evidently approved at the highest levels and aimed at
provoking and justifying an attack on Syria ; and attack that would encompass the Russian
forces in Syria. "
The Zionists control Britain and the U.S. and are planning to start WWIII using Syria and
Iran as the precursor and nothing is going to stop this Zionist drive for a Zionist NWO no
matter what the cost in lives or money, these satanic bastards are bound and determined to
have a war with Russia and so it shall be done.
These satanic bastards have deep underground military bases that they think they can
survive a nuclear war in and so they might, but what will be left, by the way these bases are
known as DUMBs, and are connected by a tunnel system through out the U.S. and Britain, if
anyone doubts this , do some research , it is true.
Mr. Meyssan wrote the first book, in 2002, to assert that 9/11 was a False Flag attack by
what we now call the 'Deep State". 9/11 The Big Lie came out in English in 2003. I believe
that Meyssan is living in exile from France in Syria. He was one of the first reporters to
show that the attacks upon Assad and Syria were being run by foreign intelligence operatives
and their terrorist minions like ISIS.
I am glad that Mr. Unz has run this very important article on the present intrigue.
This excellent article is why I visit this site. Doing the work that the Jewstream media
refuses to do. I knew "something was rotten in Denmark"! It is very, very good that the world
has leaders such as our great President Trump and powerful (take no bull) Putin. As far as
Merkel and May go the sooner the door hits them on the Ass the better.
Hilarious nonsense! Thierry Meyssan is a specialist in conspiracy theories and could be
called a "9/11 negationist". One can assume that, in his eyes, the Salisbury attack,
regardless of who might have carried it out, has not worked to Putin's advantage.
Dutch voters behaved badly, so the toys are taken away. No more 'referanda' for you.
The disintegration will accelerate: more new faces, local parties, rebellion parties. And,
of course, more clowns (hello Boris, now climb down from that tree).
Brussels is having urgent off-sites with think-tank geniuses how to stop it. So far they
have come up with: more 'media control' (propaganda), more outreach, drastic new restrictions
('you like the old Europe? -- xenophobe!, no travel for you'), and a circular management
refresh, Macronism .
One thing I doubt the globo-liberal EU obsessives will ever do is to actually listen to
the 'misguided' people. It has been preliminary decided to simply label any resistance as '
Russian subversion '. That buys some time, but they have no long term solutions, or
even coherent ideas. This will get more entertaining. Boris J-man might actually climb up
that tree before this is over
There is structural Globalist government and all participants as Theresa May are only
puppets. All western leaderships are only participants. So far only Trump is the one who is
resisting.
The orders are coming from Rothschild. He ordered now that Russia must be destroyed or at
least neutralized. I am convinced that Russia's government is fully aware of what is going
on.
Just a while ago Russia commissioned three nuclear armed submarines. Not long time ago
Putin ordered nuclear drill over all country. I would guess that Russia already a while ago
is on war preparation mode. Looks like the west lost its mind.
Concerning economy Britain is in trouble. French were strongly opposing Britain to join
EU. That was because England is the main competitor for French food exports. One thing from
this will be good. Barb be qui season is coming and beef will be now cheep.
Well I felt so unattracted by what I had read that I thought it would be helpful to see if
any of the UR Commenters who can make sense would give an assessment.
Thank you for the information. It doesn't make him sound like a person who is well placed
to make the claims to knowledge he has about what went on in England.
The main Brussels' battle cry is 'populism'. In my opinion, populism is simply opposing
political mainstream. But this mainstream is disintegrating, Hollande abolished the French
socialist party, Parti Socialiste.
In Germany Schulz, former EU top man, SPD member, the Socialist Party Germany, even had to
step down as chairman in order to make SPD members agree with the SPD coalition with Merkel's
CDU. Schulz obviously left his overpaid Brussels job in order to become chancellor.
But also Merkel policies are breaking down. Her minister of the Interior, police, border
control, immigration, naturalisation, granting asylum, Seehofer, states that he will
reinstate border controls, as the EU does nothing. Polls show that 76% of Germans agree with
him.
What most Germans do not know is that oral instructions were given in Merkel's former
chancellor period to customs and border police, not to stop any immigrant at the borders.
Merkel and Seehofer now disagree on Islam, Merkel 'the Islam belongs to Germany', Seehofer
'the Islam is in Germany'. But in how far the German people and culture can be saved in the
long run one wonders. Demographic calsulations show that with present differences in birth
rates in 30 to 40 years time 30 to 40% of the Germans will be Muslims. As Merkel said
'they're here already'. What Merkel's objectives are or were, she if often compared to the
sfinx. In any case Mutti, mom, cannot last much longer.
E European countries reject Muslim immigrants. However, after the Muslim immigrants have
been naturalised, under present EU rules, they can settle anywhere in the EU, so the eastern
countries cannot keep them away. If they want to settle in hostile communities is the
question.
" Looks like the west lost its mind. " Rothschild, Bilderberg, is not the west, nor is
AIPAC and AEI. However, former Shell CEO Van der Veer is chairman of a NATO strategic
advisory committee.
Now go back and read the article and then re-assess what A436 said, Wally.
It doesn't make him sound like a person who is well placed to make the claims to
knowledge he has about what went on in England.
He's talking about whether Thierry Meyssan would really have access to the people and
information that could confirm this story of conspiracy and its uncovering.
The British government and certain of its allies, including US Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, have attempted to launch a Cold War against Russia.
Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at
the same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The
conspirators' intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of
its capital city and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential
election. Had these manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to
bomb Damascus, including the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations
General Assembly exclude Russia from the Security Council.
However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being
plotted. They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack
against the Ghouta were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency.
In Damascus, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fayçal Miqdad, set up an
emergency Press conference for 10 March, in order to alert his fellow citizens. From its
own side, Moscow had first of all tried to contact Washington via the diplomatic channels.
But aware that the US ambassador, Jon Huntsman Jr, is the director of Caterpillar, the
company which had supplied tunneling materials to the jihadists so that they could build
their fortifications, Moscow decided to bypass the usual diplomatic channels.
No, you don't need to be IN England. But you do need to have at least a small record of
qualifications and credibility to get readers to move past those first paragraphs which look
like the script of a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence as an FSB triple-agent.
A comment from Randal on another thread that gets to the point:
The only suggestions that the Russians were responsible for the incident come from
exactly the same kinds of people who told us about Iraq's WMD and the supposed Libyan
humanitarian emergency. And yes, about supposed suicidal Syrian government uses of chemical
weapons that are conveniently just big enough to provide their enemies with yet another big
stick to beat them with, but not enough to give them any material advantage.
And there's the additional evidence that some kind of False Flag attempt fell apart at
Eastern Ghouta + Trump's discovery that the Deep State was planning to take him by surprise
(the immediate dismissal of Tillerson).
It appears the Russians are losing their patience with the proof-less accusations from The
UK.
Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko has held press conference in London, denying the
Kremlin was involved in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using
military-grade nerve agent.
"Britain has without any evidence blamed Russia for poisoning three people and continues
to refuse to cooperate," he said.
The UK authorities are violating Vienna Convention by not giving Russia access to Skripals,
because Skripal has dual citizenship (the UK and Russia), Russian Ambassador to the UK
Alexander Yakovenko said.
The Russian embassy has immediately requested details and materials of the case, the envoy
stated.
While 10 days have passed, Moscow has received no response, while London has refused to pass
samples of the poisonous substance allegedly used to attack Skripal.
Then Yakovenko turned a little darker, seemingly indicating concerns that this was nothing
but a false-flag operation... (via
SputnikNews )
The envoy called for checking how could British experts find out the exact type of the
nerve gas used to poison Skripal.
Commenting on the death of former top manager of Russian Aeroflot airline Nikolai
Glushkov, the ambassador stated that "we cannot take Britain's words on trust."
Alexander Yakovenko said that Britain has provided no proof of Russia's alleged
involvement in the nerve agent attack.
He suggested that the samples of the so-called Novichok nerve gas could have already been
in possession of a labaratory , which is located just miles away from Salisbury.
"We have been refused consular access to our Russian citizen Yulia Skripal," Russian
Ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said.
The UK is ignoring requests on case of Russian businessman Glushkov who died in London,
ambassador stated.
Russian experts puzzled how UK managed to determine type of nerve gas in Skripal case, in
days, but not weeks or months.
The UK has a long record of misdoings, he said, including the support of coup in Ukraine
and the invasion of Iraq.
UK Prime Minister May is set to warn at a summit in Brussels that Vladimir Putin's brazen
flouting of international law represents a threat democracies across the continent.
And then the ambassador turned his attention to the shocking comments from UK foreign
secretary Boris Johnson who compared the Russian World Cup to Hitler's 1939 Olympics...
Johnson recently raised the bar for the UK government's barrage of accusations against
Moscow to a new level. The British foreign minister compared Russia's hosting of this year's
World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
"I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. It is an emetic prospect to think of
Putin glorifying in this sporting event," he told a receptive Foreign Affairs Committee on
Wednesday.
"This statement is totally disgusting, it is not appropriate for any foreign minister,"
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
"Undoubtedly, [this remark] is offensive and unacceptable."
Additionally, Mr Yakovenko condemned the comments today, saying:
"Nobody has the right to insult the Russian people, who defeated the Nazis.'"
But The UK's propaganda is not just for adults, they are indoctrinating the kids too...
In case pupils in the UK don't understand the headlines on Russia and its president, a
special publication for kids explains how "toxic Putin" is poisoning the Wes t, without
bothering to distinguish between fact and allegation.
The Day, a news website that produces short articles about current affairs meant to be used
as teaching aids in British schools, has offered students two alternatives to believe about
Vladimir Putin: he is either Europe's "most dangerous leader since Hitler," or a puffed up
figure attacking other nations out of weakness.
"... We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers. ..."
"... The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it. ..."
"... To be continued ..."
"... I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the fight. ..."
"... Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war. ..."
We are glad to see you at the Foreign Ministry on this cold wintry day that nevertheless
carries a promise of spring.
We are grateful to you for responding so quickly to our invitation, which we issued only
yesterday.
The situation is indeed unusual. There is an urgent need for a non-politicised and highly
professional discussion of the Skripals' poisoning case. We have distributed a position paper.
We ask you to bring it to the notice of your governments.
The language of this position paper, just as any other such paper, is dry legalese with
technical details.
It would be wrong to invite you here just to say this. I propose that we hold an open
discussion in this closed diplomatic group.
Let us look at hard facts, beginning with the humanitarian aspects of the case at hand.
On March 4, 2018, two people, one of them Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, were attacked in
Salisbury, a flourishing city in the south of England.
Various versions of the circumstances of this tragedy have been voiced in the UK. They
highlight the use of chemical agents, which the British call Novichok, for some reason. All of
these versions do not stand up to any criticism.
In this situation, UK officials have laid the blame on Russia hastily, hysterically and
without presenting any evidence, and demanded explanations from us.
I would like to repeat that it was a Russian citizen who has been attacked in the UK. Logic
suggests two possible variants. Either the British authorities are unable to ensure protection
against such terrorist attacks on their territory, or they were directly or indirectly involved
in the preparation of this attack on a Russian citizen. There is no other alternative.
We are surprised, to put it mildly, that the British authorities had denied even consular
access to the Russian citizen who has been attacked contrary to the elementary norms of
civilised interstate relations. They are prevaricating, but at the same time they distribute
video footage from the hospital where the Skripals are allegedly being treated. But this only
raises more questions.
The British have refused to share the information obtained by their investigators and have
not replied to the Russian requests regarding Yulia Skripal. We have no reliable information
about what happened to this Russian citizen over the past two weeks and why this happened to
her. This is hard to comprehend: these events are unfolding in the 21st century in a country
that is considered civilised.
Naturally, demanding any explanations from Russia in this situation is simply absurd. Russia
does not owe anything to anyone in this context, and it cannot be held accountable for the
activities or inactivity of the British authorities in their national territory.
We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical.
The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to
answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers.
The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and
must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US
movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most
likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and
the reasons behind it.
Doubling down by the Empire. Russia is hardening up fast but still displaying manners and
offering goodwill! I'm afraid that is going nowhere excepting support is offered by the
traditional friends of Russia as usual.
So far, no answer to the question: "And what is next?"
Things on the war front? Well, the Empire wants their war dammit! And how dare Russia
deprive them of it!
I'm afraid tensions were only ratcheted up and the word de-escalation has been removed
from all Empire Dictionaries. Oh Boy!
I listened to all this. The idiot who represented the UK (actually not an idiot, she was just
doing her job and no doubt in private would admit it was stupid) just parroted out May's
previous words and never addressed any of the substantive questions raised; the EU and US
speakers merely talked about solidarity with the UK.
Telling was the fact that the Russian main man referred to the US rep as someone he had
never seen before, and was presumably from the State Dept.
None of the Russian requests for data or access to their citizens were dealt with.
The Russian side were well prepared, and the fact that they are pursuing this in this way
indicates they have nothing to hide and are pissed off.
I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time. It truly does feel
like a game of chess.
"I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time."
But why? IMHO the only possible reason could be gaining sufficient time to clear the
roaches from East Ghouta in Syria -- why? because it would eliminate one more of the possible
false flag locations, and possibly provide more time to beef up the defenses in Syria.
I get the feeling that Russia is adopting a posture, a bit like a boxer puts up his dukes
to guard against his opponents blows.
Kudos to the Venezuelan representative, who 1) stood up in Russia's defense against a
backdrop of "solidarity" with the UK (I guess meaning whatever story they concoct we will
pretend to believe) and 2) seems to be the only foreign diplomat in Moscow who bothered to
learn Russian.
"Concerned that Americans may be watching "foreign propaganda" (or something different
than what is offered on the mainstream media menu) Representatives Seth Moulton (D-MA) and
Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced the Countering Foreign Propaganda Act.
In practice, it would force RT to do even more reporting to the US government than it
currently does under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and will also force it to
broadcast every 30 minutes a message saying it is funded by, and is "under editorial control"
of, a foreign government. Apparently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will also
be the arbiter of who is under editorial control and who is not, because the BBC and France
24 would not be forced to disclose the origins of their funding, according to Foreign Policy
(FP) -- presumably, because their messaging is simply accidentally, sort of, in line with
that of the British and French governments respectively.
RT's stance on a potential crackdown in the US was summarized by its editor-in-chief,
Margarita Simonyan: "When the high from FARA is no longer hard enough, the representatives
switch to even harder legislation."
The US branch of RT came into the focus of the American mainstream public after the
election of Donald Trump as president. The channel starred in a controversial report by the
Office of the Director for National Intelligence, which alleged that RT's coverage of
American problems like fracking or the killings of black people by police amounted to
infringing on US democratic institutions."
Headline story on RT: "Peskov says ex-spy has zero value; no need to poison him."
Implication: "We only poison people of value."
If I were the spokesperson of Russia, I wouldn't even entertain the idea that Russia
poisons people. If I were a pro Russian television network, I wouldn't treat this story as
anything but Milli Vanilli.
Still think Margie "the true liberal" is your friend?
I would like to make an observation regarding the name given by Briton and others of this
lethal nerve agent, "Novichok". It seems to have appeared out of thin air, or the
imaginations of some. As has been pointed out, here in the conference, this was a fictional
name used in a TV show in Briton.
The point is this, "Novichok" is perhaps as to what the "Khorasan Group" was in the waning
days of the Obama regime. Do you remember the "Aboslute Terror!.com"(tm) that was surrounding
this fictional group of terrorists as trumpeted by Obama himself? Similarities are not
inconsequential in that a nefarious political goal is the point of the obfuscation and
lies.
What is that goal? I can't answer that question, but to speculate, I would guess that the
oligarchs of the West have decided that the potential for nuclear annihilation is worth
risking for unrestricted free market economic world domination in the short term.
I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the
ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always
on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the
fight.
In that way, no matter what facts are presented (which is what Russia is doing) Russia
will always start from what they are accused of. Right there, UK is choosing what Russian
reaction would be.
Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot
rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like
the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to
fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war.
A very good point, well made. I've learned myself that conforming to Marquis of Queensbury
rules when engaged in a conflict with a street fighter can be somewhat counter-productive.
You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to truth. I wonder how these mouthpieces
reading their government's lines can truly sleep at night.
its heartbreaking watching this. It reminds me of the poaching of the great animals of Africa
-- Russia does everything right and just -- and the shameful poachers use nothing honorable
or decent in their wish to destroy. There has been nothing but dishonesty and untruth from
Britain (and the west) in this whole affair -- no one even knows where or how the victims of
this 'chemical attack' are -- and that there's only be two victims -- a chemical attack kills
multiple people
I shall listen to the whole thing to get a better grasp of the context of certain speeches,
remarks. TASS yesterday posted a report ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) that represents their
own summary: "Russian Foreign Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga."
While appreciating Russian humor, I dashed off a message to my German friends, as follows
(translated):
Incredible! -- No I believe it. Watch the selected-emphasized sections below. The Russians
have the knife in, and they are turning it, very slowly. Delicious!
"It is likely that this could have been orchestrated from across the pond. [Note
that Yermakov -- and he comes from the MoD, not the MFA -- throws May's "highly probable"
back into her face, but he provides indirect evidence, which May did not do. Note also that
it is indeed "likely". That has been my argument the whole time, except that I told you the
Americans -- the Trump-Americans -- set a trap for May and she walked into it. Yermakov is
saying the same thing: just watch and listen.]
„It is no secret to anyone that the UK's closest partner is the only state
officially keeping the largest arsenals of chemical weapons in the world." [How true, but ist
he USA theUK's "closest partner" really? Actually, since the British launched their
anti-Trump cvampaign -- with Christopher Steele / MI6 -- the two have been at war with one
another. Yermakov seems to play innocent on that point, even naive, but if the Americans set
the trap, then the British set themselves up by believing that what May did was wha their
closest partner wanted them to do. And now May is in deep sh**.]
Yermakov further,"is most likely a new grossly falsified and unlawful
provocation." Against Russia, yes, of course, fa false flag, and illegal. But also against
the UK? That is left ambiguous.?
"It only has to be solved who stood behind this and which goals pursued." -- Yes,
indeed, who was behind the false flag, and what were the aims? This hast o be solved,
clarified. Yermakov poses these questions openly and round about, not limited to Russia. Do
the British know who was behind the false flag, and what the aims were? Do they have any
interest in finding out? Yermakov does not launch counter-accusations at the British.
„Only one thing is clear that Russia has absolutely no complicity in this
at least for one simple reason: such a scheme is simply inadmissible and it is
disadvantageous for us by all parameters." Russia's innocence is clear, and, in fact, the
British know that themselves. It would be insulting to claim the British believe their own
propaganda. And,
"At the same time, Great Britain has quite a different track record," the senior
diplomat said, adding that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had openly admitted his lies
about the situation around Iraq." Ah, yes, Blair lying about Irak WMD, but whether he was
trapped into that lie or not, at least it is obvious he was doing it to justify actions that
were not in the first place British actions, it was Bush's war.
„"One only has to guess who and for what purpose is now trying to plunge
Great Britain into a new dirty and again losing venture for London from the very outset
against Russia *this time,*" -- "One" has to guess, and "one" can be Russian, some Russsian
who guesses, or it can be a Brit. And "one" is going to "guess" about who is plunging Britain
into a dirty and loosing venture against Russia. Wow! -- Let's unravel this. Russia has
nothing to do with intelligence war-maneuvers of the Americans against England. If -- that
thatg is "highly likely" -- the Americans set the trap, plunging Britain into a losing
venture agaisn Russia, implied not to be in British interests, the Russians did not
„collude" in setting the trap. Leave Russia out of the game. England is being dragged
into something. Yermakov has "empathy" for the British in this dilemma. The British may well
think that they were dragged into the Irak-WMD charade and the war, so who is dragging
Britain into a losing game „this time"?]
„"the British authorities are beginning to get ever more nervous" as "they
have driven themselves into a deadlock" -- [Really a pity, right? That really hurts, you are
invited / or dragged onto the gang-plank, thinking you are doing the right thing, and their
your "closest partner" steps off the plank and you plunge into the depths. Sure you get
nervous, sure you see you brought onto yourself, you are in a blind-alley. -- You can only do
what Yermakov did if you have the upper-hand and you know it. Russia via Yermakov is not out
for retaliation, Russia extends the open hand , Russia is merciful. Remember the scene in
Schindler's list, where a Nazi camp-commander was about to shoot a little boy because there
were still stains in the bathtub the boy was supposed to have cleaned? And Schindler tells
the Nazi: real power ist to forgive, and the Nazi, who thinks he is powerful and wans power,
lays down his rifle. How merciful the Russias are is ytilll to come. ]
Moscow considers the Salisbury attack to be an act of terror against Russian
citizens carried out on UK soil, he stressed. -- -- So Moscow wants access to the Skripals,
Yulia in particular.
Now comes the icing on the cake, the knife begins to turn. "The senior Russian
diplomat called on the British to put their hatred against Russia aside for a moment, as well
as their "island way of thinking." "I mean no offence, I think highly of the British
diplomacy and this is the reason why I feel ashamed for you when I hear such things,"
Yermakov added, stressing that in the past, Russian diplomats had learned much from their
British colleagues and British experts and now they were calling them for dialogue.. [Of
course the British hate the Russians, but don't let that hate get in the way of properly
assessing the British situation in this trap. If Russians are anything, they are professional
and objective. Of course, Russian diplomats learned from British diplomas: they know
double-dealing also, but Russians do it openly -- open double dealing, and that is what
Yermakov was doing the whole time. Why would Russia do that? -- It's simple: "to split
Europe." That is what the British accuse Russia of doing, but Russia is not doing it the way
the British think, they are going to split Europe because the British have handed over the
lever to do it, because the British are shaming themselves with their nonsense propaganda,
and they know they are losing because it is so shameful. The British were tricked, Russia
does not play tricks. The Russians win because they put truth on the table: if the British
continue with their shameful behavior, they have no chance to play any leaves in Europe. They
know it, that is why they are nervous, that is their own dead-end. Now, when Blair lied,
dragging Britain into the Iraq war, it unleashed destruction, which does not bother the
British as long as others are destroyed. But now they are on the receiving end, it is their
own destruction which is at stake.
wow -- the British diplomat in the audience has a brutal speech -- well written -- its so
hard to defend oneself against untruth -- when its calculated -- at 53:55
It is foolish to believe that explanation will bring to your side those who are implacably
oriented against you because they take it as a sign of weakness.
"A military grade, novichok, nerve agent developed by Russia". So they didn't make then ?
'Developing' isn't making, just in case your education didn't cover this rather unsubtle
distinction. "Barrage of distortion and disinformation" Have you looked in the mirror of late
?? Pathetic.
I think the UK representative went a bit off-script when she said "Russia produced" -- the
official script is "Russian developed". I suspect that she may get a reprimand for that.
One the one hand I am amazed, on the other hand, not. Has anyone listened to the full session
or read the TASS release? ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) If not, please do so,
and show some of what the Russians call "respect," which means just listen carefully.
I do not wish to offend, as the Russian "senior diplomat" said, but I am ashamed to hear
such baseless gossip as "It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and
Russia is obviously following" or "You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to
truth" (cited examples being by no means exhasutive).
Do you realize, have you registered the *fact* that the Russians said "Russian Foreign
Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga"?, which a load of backup to that
suggesion.
"... By doing do, the British government adopted the theories of Professor Amy Knight. On 22 January 2018, this US Sovietologist published a very strange book -- Orders to Kill -- the Putin régime and political murder . The author, who is " the " specialist on the ex-KGB, attempts to demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is a serial killer responsible for dozens of political assassinations, from the terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999 to the attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013, by way of the execution of Alexandre Litvinenko in London in 2006 or that of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015. However, she admits herself that there is absolutely no proof of her accusations. ..."
"... The European Liberals then joined the fray. Ex-Prime Minister of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt, who presides their group in the European Parliament, called on the European Union to adopt sanctions against Russia. His counterpart at the head of their British party, Sir Vince Cable, proposed a European boycott of the World Football Cup. And already, Buckingham Palace announced that the royal family has canceled their trip to Russia. ..."
"... Responding to the Prime Minister, Blairist deputy Chris Leslie qualified Russia as a rogue state and demanded its suspension from the UN Security Council. Theresa May agreed to examine the question, but stressed that the outcome could only be decided by the General Assembly in order to avoid the Russian veto. ..."
"... During the public debate which followed, UK chargé d'affaire Jonathan Allen represented his country. He is an agent of MI6 who created the British War Propaganda Service and gives active support to the jihadists in Syria. He declared -- " Russia has already interfered in the affairs of other countries, Russia has already violated international law in Ukraine, Russia has comtempt for civilian life, as witnessed by the attack on a commercial aircraft over Ukraine by Russian mercenaries, Russia protects the use of chemical weapons by Assad ( ) The Russian state is responsible for this attempted murder ". The permanent representative for France, François Delattre, who, by virtue of a derogation by President Sarkozy, was trained at the US State Department, noted that his country had launched an initiative to end the impunity of those who use chemical weapons. He implied that the initiative, originally directed at Syria, could also be turned against Russia. ..."
"... Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya pointed out that the session had been convened at London's request, but that it is public at Moscow's request. He observed that the United Kingdom is violating international law by treating this subject at the Security Council while keeping the OPCW out of its enquiry. He noted that if London had been able to identify the " Novotchik ", it's because it has the formula and can therefore make its own. He noted Russia's desire to collaborate with the OPCW in the respect for international procedures. ..."
"... Throughout its long history, England has never hesitated to lie and betray its oath in order to defend its interests. This is how it earned its French nickname of " perfide Albion " (after the Latin name for England) ..."
"... local parties are the winners, winners also are national anti establishment parties, despite the demonizing of these populists, that represent the opinions of a significant portion of the population. ..."
"... As Belgium and Germany, governing our country becomes more and more difficult. The country seems to be more and more divided between those who trust the government, and those with deep distrust. ..."
The British government and certain of its allies, including US Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, have attempted to launch a Cold War against Russia.
Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at the
same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The conspirators'
intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of its capital city
and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential election. Had these
manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to bomb Damascus, including
the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations General Assembly exclude Russia
from the Security Council.
However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being plotted.
They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack against the Ghouta
were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency.
In Damascus, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fayçal Miqdad, set up an
emergency Press conference for 10 March, in order to alert his fellow citizens. From its own
side, Moscow had first of all tried to contact Washington via the diplomatic channels. But
aware that the US ambassador, Jon Huntsman Jr, is the director of Caterpillar, the company
which had supplied tunneling materials to the jihadists so that they could build their
fortifications, Moscow decided to bypass the usual diplomatic channels.
The Syrian army seized two chemical weapons laboratories, the first on 12 March in Aftris,
and the second on the following day in Chifonya. Meanwhile, Russian diplomats pushed the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to get involved in the criminal
investigation in Salisbury.
In the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Theresa May violently accused Russia of
having ordered the attack in Salisbury. According to her, the ex-double agent Sergueï
Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military nerve gas of a type " developed by
Russia " under the name of " Novitchok ". Since the Kremlin considers Russian citizens who
have defected as legitimate targets, it is therefore highly likely that they ordered the
crime.
" Novitchok " is known by what has been revealed by two Soviet personalities, Lev Fyodorov
and Vil Mirzayanov. The scientist Fyodorov published an article in the Russian weekly Top
Secret (Совершенно
секретно) in July 1992, warning about the
extremely dangerous nature of this product, and warning against the use of old Soviet
weaponry by the Western powers to destroy the environment in Russia and make it unlivable. In
October 1992, he published a second article in the News of Moscow
(Московские
новости) with a counter-espionage executive,
Mirzayanov, denouncing the corruption of certain generals and the traffic of " Novitchok " in
which they were involved. However, they did not know to whom they may have sold the product.
Mirzayanov was first of all arrested for high treason, then released. Fyodorov died in Russia
last August, but Mirzayanov is living in exile in the United States, where he collaborates
with the Department of Defense.
Russian ex-counter intelligence officer Vil Mirzayanov defected to the United States. Now
83 years old, he comments on the Skripal affair from Boston.
" Novitchok " was fabricated in a Soviet laboratory in Nurus, in what is now Uzbekistan.
During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was destroyed by a US team of specialists.
Uzbekistan and the United States, by necessity, have therefore possessed and studied samples
of this substance. They are both capable of producing it.
British Minister for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson summoned the Russian ambassador in
London, Alexandre Iakovenko. He gave him an ultimatum of 36 hours to check if any " Novitchok
" was missing from their stocks. The ambassador replied that none was missing, because Russia
had destroyed all of the chemical weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union, as
witnessed by the OPCW, which had drawn up a certified report.
After a telephone discussion with Boris Johnson, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in
turn condemned Russia for the attack in Salisbury.
Meanwhile, a debate was under way at the UN Security Council concerning the situation in
the Ghouta. The permanent representative for the US, Nikki Haley, declared -- " About one
year ago, after the sarin gas attack perpetrated in Khan Cheïkhoun by the Syrian
régime, the United States warned the Council. We said that faced with the systematic
inaction of the international community, states are sometimes obliged to act on their own.
The Security Council did not react, and the United States bombed the air base from which al
Assad had launched his chemical attack. We are reiterating the same warning today ".
The Russian Intelligence Services handed out documents from the US staff. They showed that
the Pentagon was ready to bomb the Presidential palace and the Syrian Ministries, on the
model of what it had done during the taking of Baghdad (3 to 12 April 2003).
Commenting the declaration by Nikki Haley, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
had always called the attack in Khan Cheïkhoun a " Western manipulation ", revealed that
the false information which had led the White House into error and triggered the bombing of
the Al-Chaayrate air base, had in fact come from a British laboratory which had never
revealed how it came to possess its samples.
The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs published a Press release condemning a possible
US military intervention, and announcing that if Russian citizens were harmed in Damascus,
Moscow would riposte proportionally, since the Russian President is constitutionally
responsible for the security of his fellow citizens.
Bypassing the official diplomatic channels, Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri
Guerassimov contacted his US counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fear of
a false flag chemical attack in Ghouta. Dunford took this information vey seriously, and
alerted US Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, who referred the matter to President Donald
Trump. In view of the Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared
without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike
Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy.
We do not know the result of this internal enquiry, but President Trump acquired the
conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated. The Secretary of State
was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to
Washington.
Theresa May wrote to the General Secretary of the United Nations accusing Russia of having
ordered the attack in Salisbury, and convened an emergency meeting of the Security Council.
Without waiting, she expelled 23 Russian diplomats.
Published one month and a half before the attack in Salisbury, Amy Knight's book presents
what was to become MI5's thesis. The author herself maintains that she has not the slightest
proof of what she is claiming.
At the request of President of the House of Commons Interior Committee Yvette Cooper,
British Secretary for the Interior Amber Rudd announced that MI5 (Military Interior Secret
Services ) is going to re-open 14 enquiries into deaths which, according to US sources, were
ordered by the Kremlin.
By doing do, the British government adopted the theories of Professor Amy Knight. On
22 January 2018, this US Sovietologist published a very strange book -- Orders to Kill --
the Putin régime and political murder . The author, who is " the " specialist on
the ex-KGB, attempts to demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is a serial killer responsible for
dozens of political assassinations, from the terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999 to the
attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013, by way of the execution of Alexandre Litvinenko in
London in 2006 or that of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015. However, she admits herself that
there is absolutely no proof of her accusations.
The European Liberals then joined the fray. Ex-Prime Minister of Belgium Guy
Verhofstadt, who presides their group in the European Parliament, called on the European
Union to adopt sanctions against Russia. His counterpart at the head of their British party,
Sir Vince Cable, proposed a European boycott of the World Football Cup. And already,
Buckingham Palace announced that the royal family has canceled their trip to Russia.
The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, announced that it might ban the channel Russia
Today as a retaliatory measure, even though RT has on no occasion violated British
law.
The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs summoned the British ambassador in Moscow to
inform him that reciprocal measures would soon be indicated in retaliation for the expulsion
of Russian diplomats from London.
President Trump announced on Twitter that he had fired his Secretary of State, with whom
he had not yet been in contact. He was replaced by Mike Pompeo, ex-Director of the CIA, who,
the night before, had confirmed the authenticity of the Russian information transmitted by
General Dunford. On his arrival in Washington, Tillerson obtained confirmation of his
dismissal from White House General Secretary General John Kelly.
The ex-CEO of the largest
multinational in the world, ExxonMobil, thought he was untouchable. But to his great
surprise, Rex Tillerson was brutally dismissed by Donald Trump. The former believed he was
serving the Anglo-Saxon world, while the latter considers him to be a traitor to his country.
Ex-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is a product of the Texan middle class. He and his
family worked for the US Scouts, of whom he became the National President (2010-12).
Culturally close to England, he did not hesitate, when he became President of the
mega-multinational Exxon-Mobil (2006-16), not only to wage a politically correct campaign
favouring the acceptance of young gays into the Scouts, but also to recruit mercenaries in
British Guiana. He is said to be a member of the Pilgrims Society, the most prestigious of
Anglo-US clubs, presided by Queen Elizabeth II, a number of whose members were part of the
Obama administration.
During his functions as Secretary of State, the quality of his education provided a bond
for Donald Trump, considered by US high society to be a buffoon. He was in disagreement with
his President on three major subjects which allow us to define the ideology of the
conspirators -
Like London and the US deep state, he thought it would be useful to diabolise Russia in
order to consolidate the power of the Anglo-Saxons in the Western camp ;
Like London, he thought that in order to maintain Western colonialism in the Middle East, it
was necessary to favour Iranian President Cheikh Rohani against the Supreme Leader of the
Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei. He therefore supported the 5+1 agreement.
Like the US deep state, he considered that the swing of North Korea towards the United
States should remain secret, and be used to justify a military deployment which would be
directed in reality against the People's Repubic of China. He was therefore in favor of
official talks with Pyongyang, but opposed to a meeting between the two heads of
state.
While Washington was still in shock, Theresa May spoke once again before the House of
Commons to develop her accusation, while all around the world, British diplomats spoke to
numerous inter-governmental organisations in order to broadcast the message. Responding
to the Prime Minister, Blairist deputy Chris Leslie qualified Russia as a rogue state and
demanded its suspension from the UN Security Council. Theresa May agreed to examine the
question, but stressed that the outcome could only be decided by the General Assembly in
order to avoid the Russian veto.
The North Atlantic Council (NATO) met in Brussels at the request of the United Kingdom.
The 29 member states drew a link between the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the attack
in Salisbury. They then decided that Russia was " probably " responsible for these two
events.
In New York, the permanent representative of Russia, Vasily Nebenzya, proposed to the
members of the Security Council that they adopt a declaration attesting to their common will
to shed light on the attack in Salisbury and handing over the enquiry to the OPCW in the
respect of international procedures. But the United Kingdom refused any text which did not
contain the expression that Russia was " probably responsible " for the attack.
During the public debate which followed, UK chargé d'affaire Jonathan Allen
represented his country. He is an agent of MI6 who created the British War Propaganda Service
and gives active support to the jihadists in Syria. He declared -- " Russia has already
interfered in the affairs of other countries, Russia has already violated international law
in Ukraine, Russia has comtempt for civilian life, as witnessed by the attack on a commercial
aircraft over Ukraine by Russian mercenaries, Russia protects the use of chemical weapons by
Assad ( ) The Russian state is responsible for this attempted murder ". The permanent
representative for France, François Delattre, who, by virtue of a derogation by
President Sarkozy, was trained at the US State Department, noted that his country had
launched an initiative to end the impunity of those who use chemical weapons. He implied that
the initiative, originally directed at Syria, could also be turned against Russia.
Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya pointed out that the session had been convened at
London's request, but that it is public at Moscow's request. He observed that the United
Kingdom is violating international law by treating this subject at the Security Council while
keeping the OPCW out of its enquiry. He noted that if London had been able to identify the "
Novotchik ", it's because it has the formula and can therefore make its own. He noted
Russia's desire to collaborate with the OPCW in the respect for international
procedures.
The United Kingdom published a common declaration which had been cosigned the night before
by France and Germany, as well as Rex Tillerson, who at that moment was still US Secretary of
State. The text reiterated British suspicions. It denounced the use of " a neurotoxic agent
of military quality, and of a type developed by Russia ", and affirmed that it was " highly
probable that Russia is responsible for the attack ".
The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Boris Johnson, while the US
Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, established new sanctions against Russia. These
are not connected to the current affair, but to allegations of interference in US public
life. The decree nonetheless mentions the attack in Salisbury as proof of the underhand
methods of Russia.
Throughout its long history, England has never hesitated to lie and
betray its oath in order to defend its interests. This is how it earned its French nickname
of " perfide Albion " (after the Latin name for England)
British Secretary for Defence, the young Gavin Williamson, declared that after the
expulsion of its diplomats, Russia should " shut up and go away " (sic). This is the first
time since the end of the Second World War that a representative of a permanent member state
of the Security Council has employed such a vocabulary in the face of another member of the
Council. Sergueï Lavrov commented -- " He's a charming young man. He must want to ensure
his place in History, by making shock declarations [...] Perhaps he lacks education ".
In the space of four days, the United Kingdom and its allies have laid the premises of a new
division of the world, a Cold War.
However, Syria is not Iraq and the UNO is not the G8 (from which Russia has been excluded
because of its adhesion to Crimea and its support of Syria). The United States are not going to
destroy Damascus, and Russia will not be excluded from the Security Council. After having
resigned from the European Union, then having refused to sign the Chinese declaration about the
Silk Road, the United Kingdom thought to improve its stature by eliminating a competitor. By
this piece of dirty work, it imagined that it would acquire a new dimension and become the "
Global Britain " announced by Madame May. But it is destroying its own credibility.
Yesterday were the Dutch municipal elections. The losers were the governing parties at
national level. Winners the local parties. Trust in 'elite' politicians is diminishing
further.
We yesterday also had our last referendum, the referendum law no longer exists. As with
all previous referenda, we voted against government policy, this time the law that gives
secret services the legal right to spy on anyone.
As with all referenda, our vote will not have any effect, as when in 2005 we voted against
the EU, and two years ago against the EU Ukraine association treaty.
Nevertheless, democracy functions. As I wrote, local parties are the winners, winners
also are national anti establishment parties, despite the demonizing of these populists, that
represent the opinions of a significant portion of the population.
As Belgium and Germany, governing our country becomes more and more difficult. The
country seems to be more and more divided between those who trust the government, and those
with deep distrust.
Two of the worst American false flags are responsible for the killing in North Korea and
Vietnam. The killing of it's own people is not a moral dilemma for the Deep State.
Meyssan has often voiced the opinion that Trump & Putin have an understanding. We can't,
and will probably never know the truth of this opinion, but when one watches their body
language and behaviour together such as was openly displayed at the APEC summit in Vietnam,
one sees that they are very comfortable with each other.
One of the things that the Kremlin understands is that the US, and specifically its
foreign policy determinations, is rat's nest of various vested and/or rogue interests pulling
in their various directions, and that by virtue of Washington's chaotic politics much of what
seems to be foreign policy is executed without the knowledge, much less control of the
President, or even the State & Defence Departments.
The reality is that both Russia and China want (for different reasons) a healthy USA to
sit at a newly constituted round table of Great Powers. There are factions within the
US that agree with them, and that the road to Global Hegemony is a dead end. Trump's election
has opened a window of opportunity to allow the US to de-throttle, and even back away from
that goal should those factions gain the upper hand. From what we see, they are making
progress.
There's still a political battle royal ahead for them, but there's also factions within
the US' allies whose fortunes will take a turn for the worse should they succeed. They will
naturally ally with those in the US who's goal is Empire. As it is, with current developments
in DC, and the Syrian gambit backfiring, said factions are panicking and it should surprise
no-one to see ill-conceived and executed attempts to reverse their fortunes.
I think the Skripal case is a textbook example of just that kind of thing happening. A
farcical caricature of a false flag operation gone awry, and no plausible narrative in
sight.
That the once great UK is reduced to 3 blind mice standing in for Ministers of what are
normally a nation's 3 most powerful ministries shows just how far from its moorings the West
has drifted. One is almost embarrassed for them as they thrash around.
Saker posted a video on his site of a meeting called by the Kremlin of all ambassadors.
It's astonishing, frankly.
MAY-DAY, MAY-DAY don't write checks with insufficient funds on hand, May, America doesn't
need the UK pimping a war with Russia, we can't pay for the ones with have now!
One thing about the neo-conservatives, who have thoroughly penetrated the Tory government of
British Prime Minister Theresa May and, due to the reality television show savant nature of
Donald Trump, are rapidly filling as many vacancies in the US administration as possible, is
that they are consistent. Neocons, who make no secret of their desire for major military
conflagrations, have dusted off an old playbook with regard to the nerve agent poisoning of
Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England. The convoluted
charges made by the British government bear all the hallmarks of the Polonium-210 radiation
poisoning of ex-Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London in
2006.
In June 2008, the British government conceded that the government of British Labor Prime
Minister Tony Blair concocted and exaggerated claims about Russia's involvement in the
Litvinenko poisoning in 2006. Apparently, the present government of Mrs. May believes rational
people have no memories of what transpired in Britain twelve years ago.
The British intelligence services, which had their own relationship with Litvinenko, could
no longer manage to suppress overwhelming evidence that the poisoning of Litvinenko was the
result of a plot by anti-Vladimir Putin criminal syndicates based in Britain, Israel, Ukraine,
and Poland to embarrass the Russian government.
Suspicions about the role of the exiled Russian-Israeli criminal syndicates in the poisoning
of Litvinenko, including that which was headed by Litvinenko's friend, wanted Russo-Israeli
oligarch Boris Berezovsky, re-surfaced after former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar became
violently ill after eating breakfast at a conference he was attending in Dublin, Ireland.
Ireland's banking secrecy laws has made it a favorite location for the Eurasian-Israeli
Mafia.
Berezovsky's own suspicious death in March 2013 discovery of Berezovsky's body in his Ascot
estate in England suggested that the anti-Russian crime syndicates, which work closely with
hedge fund billionaire troublemaker George Soros and the Central Intelligence Agency,
eliminated Berezovsky because he was about to reveal the nature of the syndicates to the
Russian government. Most media reports coming out of Britain, at the time, claimed that
Berezovsky died from natural causes. A few others suggested suicide or murder. Interestingly,
Berezovsky had recently received medical treatment in Israel.
Berezovsky's expatriate friends in Britain and Israel included exiled oligarchs who were
subjects of Russian arrest warrants. These included Russian-Israeli businessman Leonid Nevzlin,
the former chief executive officer of Yukos Oil, who was the subject of a Russian arrest
warrant for murder, embezzlement, and tax evasion. Nevzlin, a former head of the Russian Jewish
Congress, resided in Tel Aviv under the protection of the Israeli government. Nevzlin's exiled
Russian-Israeli comrades included Vladimir Dubov, a major Yukos shareholder, and wanted
oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky. The wanted ex-Yukos officials, who are now allied with the
expatriate former chief of Yukos and ex-convict, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, have also been linked to
wealthy British businessman Jacob Rothschild.
Berezovsky ran from exile a major support network for Chechen terrorists. One of their
leaders, Ahmed Zakayev, was a close associate of Berezovsky and Litvinenko.
Just like Litvinenko, Yulia Skripal had her own reported connections to Russian and Western
intelligence services, suggesting that she, like Litvinenko, had embarked on a dangerous life
as a double or triple agent. Yulia Skripal worked for the "information center" at the US
embassy in Moscow and at the Holiday Inn in Southampton in England. Hotel jobs are a preferred
"non-official cover" position for the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6). Until his
arrest by Russian authorities, Sergei Skripal was a paid agent for MI-6. In 2010, he was given
asylum in Britain after a major spy swap between the United States and Russia.
The nerve agent reportedly used on Skripal and his daughter was a "Novichok" ("Newcomer"),
one of a series of binary agents allegedly developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
These nerve agents were also apparently stockpiled at the British biological and chemical
warfare research facility at Porton Down, a mere eight miles from Salisbury, where the Skripals
took ill.
But the existence of Novichok is, itself questionable. Claims about Novichok originally came
from Vil Mirzayanov, a Soviet chemical weapons scientist who claimed to have invented Novichok
at a facility in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1994, Mirzayanov fled to the United
States, where he came under the control of the CIA. In 2016, Dr. Robin Black, the chief of the
Detection Laboratory in Porton Down, published an academic paper that questioned the veracity
of Mirzayanov's Novichok claims.
The poisoning of the Skripals was followed shortly by the death in London of Berezovsky's
longtime business colleague and friend Nikolai Glushkov. British police called Glushkov's death
"suspicious," citing as the cause "compression to the neck." Berezovsky died as the result of a
hanging, believed by police to be a "suicide." Radioactive traces of the Polonium-210 used to
poison Litvinenko were traced to Berezovsky's office at 7 Down Street, in London's Mayfair
district. In 2008, Badri Patarkatsishvili, Berezovsky's Georgian-Israeli business partner,
collapsed and died at his home a mere 15 miles from Berezovsky's English estate. The death of
the 52-year old was determined by authorities to be the result of a "heart attack."
Much more than circumstantial evidence suggests that Berezovsky, Glushkov, and
Patarkatsishvili were murdered by exiled opponents of the Russian government, who also happen
to be kingpins in the Eurasian-Israeli mafia that uses Britain as a major base of operations.
Britain is favored by these criminal syndicates because of the close working relationship they
have with British and American intelligence agencies, as well as with Soros, who maintains a
residence in London.
Just as with the unfounded allegations about Russia made by British government officials in
the wake of the Litvinenko death, current British officials found it difficult to keep their
stories straight or factual. One such official was Foreign Secretary Boris London, the
dim-witted former mayor of London who has been dubbed "the British Trump," a reference to the
US president.
Johnson laughingly claimed that Russia directed "the use of a nerve agent on the streets of
the UK, on the streets of Europe, for the first time since the Second World War." Just as with
the Trump administration's wanton use of "fake news" and "alternate facts," Johnson was engaged
in making up a "false history." There is no evidence that any chemical weapons, let alone nerve
agents, were used by Germany against Britain during the Second World War. A British mustard gas
attack on Adolf Hitler and his army unit near Ypres, France – an attack that landed
Hitler in a military hospital with burnt lungs and partial blindness – convinced the
German dictator not to use chemical weapons against Britain or the Soviet Union.
Although the Nazis maintained stockpiles of tabun and sarin nerve agents, Hitler forbid his
generals from employing them in battle, except for the use of asphyxiating gas agents by SS
chemical warfare troops in clearing caverns and catacombs in Sevastopol and Odessa of Soviet
military personnel and civilians who had sought refuge from the invading German army. And,
although the Nazis used hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide to murder millions of Jews, Roma,
Soviet prisoners of war, and others in concentration camps throughout Europe, Johnson's
statement about the use of nerve agents on British and European streets in World War II is
ludicrous, as well as patently false. What is not false is that British generals dissuaded
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from using poison gas and anthrax on German population
centers in World War II. Of course, Churchill was a great promoter of the use of poison gas,
directing the use of debilitating lachrymatory gas ("tear gas") and deadlier mustard gas
against rebels in Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq, in 1920.
In the world of British intelligence "make-believe" it is sometimes more revealing to
discover the true nature of MI-6 operations from the movies. The screenwriters of the James
Bond film, "Casino Royale," recognized the nature of the real life international mobsters who
engage in such matters as assassinations of individuals for propaganda purposes. In the film,
not only is a Montenegro-based Eurasian mob ring – Montenegro is one of the centers for
the Eurasian-Israeli syndicates – featured as engaging in international terrorism in
order to manipulate the stock market, but there is a reference by "M" (Judi Dench) that a
similar mob ring engaged in stock "put" options before the 9/11 attacks, in order to make tons
of money on the world markets. It appears that fictional spies know more about such intrigue,
such as the murders of Litvinenko, Berezovsky, Patarkatsishvili, and Glushkov and the
poisonings of the Skripals and Gaidar to bring about international crises, than do their
real-life counterparts and intellectual dullards like Boris Johnson and Theresa May.
This supposedly MI6-connected presstitute promoted Steele dossier. Now he promotes the war
with Russia.
His idea is confiscate cash from Russian oligarchs. He forgot that British have investments
in Russian that can also be gone.
Notable quotes:
"... Expulsion of diplomats is a temporary setback but the PM might have done more ..."
"... There is one area where the Russian elite is vulnerable. It keeps its money in the west, with much of it laundered in London and via UK corporate entities and banks. Unlike in Soviet times when apparatchiks enjoyed superior Moscow apartments, Putin's friends are multibillionaires, with yachts, villas, planes and other international assets. ..."
"... May could have frozen the luxury properties of tycoons such as Alisher Usmanov or Igor Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, whose handsome London flat overlooks the Ministry of Defence. She didn't. Oligarchs, of course, are not officials. But they are useful intermediaries who enjoy their fortunes at Putin's pleasure. ..."
Expulsion of diplomats is a temporary setback but the PM might have done more
... ... ...
There is one area where the Russian elite is vulnerable. It keeps its money in the west,
with much of it laundered in London and via UK corporate entities and banks. Unlike in Soviet
times when apparatchiks enjoyed superior Moscow apartments, Putin's friends are
multibillionaires, with yachts, villas, planes and other international assets.
An entire class of British professionals service Russia's super-rich. They include lawyers,
public relations executives, real estate firms, headmasters and accountants. It is this last
group which sets up complex offshore-managed structures used for the purposes of money
laundering. They went unmentioned by May.
And on the question of what to do about Russian cash, May was vague. The measures she
suggested on Wednesday were aspirational. They included bringing to bear the capabilities of
law enforcement against "serious criminals and corrupt elites". This happens already. But
hard-pressed officers from the National Crime Agency admit prosecuting wealthy perpetrators is
difficult and time-consuming.
May could have frozen the luxury properties of tycoons such as Alisher Usmanov or Igor
Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, whose handsome London flat overlooks the Ministry of
Defence. She didn't. Oligarchs, of course, are not officials. But they are useful
intermediaries who enjoy their fortunes at Putin's pleasure.
"... It looks like Political Hollywood thinks like this: if the scheme works, there is no need to change anything and it can be re-played with the same success, just different actors. That why this new "Russian poisoning scandal" looks to me like copy-cat of Litvinenko case with polonium replaced with equally mysterious and fascinating Novichok nerve gas. Which may or may not exist... ..."
"Former MI5 spy Sergei Skripal reported to the police about fears for his life the day
before the poisoning". My impression is that I already watched quite similar movie.
I don't really like Hollywood scripts, and for some time I am quite indifferent to Oscar,
and in General to the whole factory production.
Because when you buy a t-shirt or sneakers or fast food, quality standards matter to you. It
is good to know that for example a t-shirt should be wearable at least for a year or so. When
you watch a Hollywood movie with a similarly level of predictability which they try to present
as a high quality, you feel like a very old man. In such movies you can guess all the
Director's and scenario moves, the whole synopsis approximately 15 minutes into the movies. And
it does no matter if this is a Hollywood Thriller, or a Western, or a detective, or a Comedy,
or mystery. It iether causes cognitive dissonance or simply boredom.
I usually watch movies late in the evening. In recent years, about a third of these
Hollywood moves affected me as a sleeping pill, I really fell asleep on the couch. And I
usually watch only most popular, most successful Hollywood movies, often Oscar nominated, not
some second rate crap.
But let's return to Skripal, those sacrificial lamps or pawns in some big game. Here we see
the same scenario as with Litvinenko. A person used like a preservative long ago who managed to
get to London by a lucky chance, and found himself under close watch of Berezovsky and MI5.
They extracted from Litvinenko as much useful staff as they could leaving a disgruntled person
with limited assets. But in this non-waste technology world they managed to find use even for a
worn body of this "thrown like dirty napkins into waste basket" individual.
It looks like Political Hollywood thinks like this: if the scheme works, there is no need to
change anything and it can be re-played with the same success, just different actors. That why
this new "Russian poisoning scandal" looks to me like copy-cat of Litvinenko case with polonium
replaced with equally mysterious and fascinating Novichok nerve gas. Which may or may not
exist...
The same is true about our "collective Western partners" attempt to present this poisoning
as a "casus belli". Well, this is a standard scheme to initiates the regime change in a certain country and start killing its
inhabitants. "Use of chemical weapons". So boring. It was used so many time in Syria, Libya and elsewhere by our
Western partners puppets, that it might also make me sleepy watching this nonsense on TV. As if it
does not touch the lives of many thousands of people. With whom our "Western partners" play a
very nasty "shooter" videogame with real victims. Including woman and children.
By the way, the case of Grigory Rodchenkov, I'd now would not worry about the KGB
too much. I would
worry a lot about Western intelligence agencies. Which might sooner or later, might decide to use
his cadaver to make yet another false flag operation, yet another nasty anti-Russian move.
However, this is a completely different story. And the carcass of Rodchenkov no longer belongs
to him in any case. He sold his for some number of silver coins, along with his soul.
"As for the tragedy that you mentioned, I found out about it from the media. The first thing that entered my head was that if
it had been a military-grade nerve agent, the people would have died on the spot," said Putin.
"Secondly, Russia does not have such [nerve] agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons under the supervision of international
organisations and we did it first, unlike some of our partners who promised to do it, but unfortunately did not keep their promises."
Despite the tensions, Putin said Moscow was ready to cooperate with London: "We are ready to cooperate, we said that straight
away. We are ready to take part in the necessary investigations, but for that there needs be a desire from the other side and we
don't see that yet. But we are not taking it off the agenda, joint efforts are possible."
"I think any sensible person would understand that it would be rubbish, drivel, nonsense, for Russia to embark on such an escapade
on the eve of a presidential election."
Surprisingly this Guardian presstitute has some sound thoughts ;-)
Theresa May was probably pushed by Big Uncle. It is inconceivable that she behaved so
arrogantly and foolishly on her own, even taking into account that any confrontation with Russia
might prolong the life of her cabinet.
All-in-all this false flag operation looks like the first step is some gambit designed by
British intelligence services against Russia. With Scripals as sacrificed pawns. It is amazing
how "false flag friendly" poisoning cases are. Uncomfortable evidence can always be hidden under
that smoke screen of "state secrecy".
There might be strong desire to confiscate Russian oligarch money as one of the motives for
the current May goverment hysteria. That's explains why members of parliament jumped so high on
orders, and why the reaction was so bipartisan. Because the attempt to spoil the World Cup looks
so petty, that it is smells with the USA, not British intelligence serves. After all British team
is a favorite. But such attempts were numerous in the past, so you never know. Sochi was the most
recent example.
Notable quotes:
"... Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our history of provoking Russia ..."
"... The prospect has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand. ..."
"... Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end. Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany) pleading with the west "not to play with fire". ..."
"... As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money laundering. ..."
Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our
history of provoking Russia
Do we really want war with Russia? Do we want to risk one, even a tiny one? The prospect
has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given
Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There
is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its
spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand.
... ... ...
Parliament parroted the same nonsense. The Tories' Tom Tugendhat said the poisoning "if not
an act of war, was certainly a warlike act". Labour's Chris Leslie and John Woodcock worked
themselves into a lather over "our country under attack" and "the gravity of the threat Russia
poses to this nation". In these bidding wars of exaggeration, words lose all meaning.
... ... ...
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the
humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end.
Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge
of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany)
pleading with the west "not to play with fire".
As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by
opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the
world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the
prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money
laundering.
All this is a grim echo of how the allies treated Germany after Versailles in 1919. They
rubbed its nose in defeat, occupying its territory, destroying its dignity and stripping it of
its flimsy wealth. Germany eventually found refuge in dictatorship.
... ... ...
Camus wrote that "plagues and wars take people equally by surprise". The idea that Skripal
may be the Franz Ferdinand of the next European conflict may seem ludicrous. Yet the west's
responses to post-Soviet Russia, however reasonable in the short term, have been disastrous in
general. A war with Russia would be the west's fault.
"... Senior Russian diplomatic and military officials have accused the UK of hiding and possibly planning to destroy evidence in the investigation into the Salisbury nerve agent attack. ..."
Senior Russian diplomatic and military officials have accused the UK of hiding and possibly planning to destroy evidence
in the investigation into the Salisbury nerve agent attack.
The comments came during a remarkable briefing at Moscow's foreign ministry given for all foreign ambassadors in Russia, to lay
out the country's argument for why it is not responsible for the attack on former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, on 4 March.
Britain says they were poisoned with a nerve agent known as novichok and has blamed Russia for the attack, but Moscow has
fiercely denied any involvement. The case has prompted the two countries to expel diplomats in a tit-for-tat dispute.
Speaking to a lecture hall of diplomats, Vladimir Yermakov, deputy head of the ministry's department for non-proliferation,
suggested that the UK was "hiding facts" about the case that may later "disappear".
Laurie Bristow, the British ambassador to Russia, did not attend and the ambassadors of other major allies, including the US,
Germany and France, also boycotted the briefing.
But one British diplomat did go. Emma Nottingham condemned the "disinformation" coming from the Russian government during the
briefing, which was closed to the press but streamed live online.
"Russia has offered us so far no explanation of how this agent came to be used in the United
Kingdom and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in
contravention of international law," Nottingham told the five-person panel.
"We are not obliged to give anything to Great Britain," Yermakov replied to Nottingham. "It
is an attack on Russian citizens on the territory of Great Britain, so why don't we carry out a
joint investigation?"
Yermakov also suggested that Russia may not accept the conclusions of an investigation by
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as fact.
"It is not possible to evaluate what happened in Salisbury within the framework of the
convention and within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said in
remarks translated by Interfax. "Deeper expert evaluations will be needed, and in any case we
need to conduct our own investigations for Russia to be able to draw any conclusions."
At present there is no way of disciplining a retired judge who trades on his former title of
"Judge" and his rank of QC to give advice to lay people (without any up-to-date knowledge of
law or professional indemnity insurance) and then speak on their behalf as a McKenzie Friend
in Court.
I know of a case where this actually happened - a retired Chancery Circuit Judge
intervened in a case involving a religious charity when he has no known connection to the
faith in question. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful for the parties and impeded the
proper administration of justice. But nothing could be done about his unprofessional and
meddling behaviour.
Journalists are not state officials, and do not have the power to imprison citizens. There is
no right to be a judge (so state regulation of judges is legitimate) whereas there is a right
to freedom of speech (so state regulation of journalism is not legitimate).
Judges are lawyers: a rapacious breed drawn predominantly from and representing the "highest"
stratum of society. They are expert at presenting one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and
evidence. They provide "blue chip justice" favouring that social segment that can afford to
hire lawyers and so keep the legal sector in work. They know how to wear down complainants
(often of limited means) with unjustified decisions that have to be appealed at every stage
of proceedings. They are assisted by absurb laws which deem them virtually infallible in
jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal, where it is, in practice, not an "error of
law" to find something impossible to be true or to make a finding contrary to the weight of
evidence, or without evidential basis (and invariably favouring the employer). Even when an
indefatigable complainant succeeds in an appeal against a rotten judgement, they often find
their case "remitted" for a rehearing before the same biased tribunal or another made up of
the friends and colleagues of the first, and likewise of the employer. Many contributors
here, and all employment lawyers, know this to be true, yet this unjust system persists. What
criticisms of it there are focus on ultimately minor issues such as whether one should have
to pay fees to lodge complaints, rather than the more important issue of its institutional
racialism and the virtual impossibility of Black people being successful in complaints
against members of the establishment within it.
You also need to remember that judges work within a system which is controlled by politics,
press start complaining about high number of car thefts, car thieves suddenly start getting
jailed while house breakers do not.
There are also other parts of the system for instance social work reports, often made
about people who know the systems inside out, know exactly what to say and when to say it.
Lawyers who are simply there to lie, on both sides of the case with full knowledge they are
doing it. Police who are more concerned about getting results than actually justice. And
finally the judges themselves who all appear to have totally different interpretations of the
law, I have seen grown men break down when they find out they are getting 1 judge over
another and that was just the lawyers.
Judicial lies are far from confined to racism-motivated instances. The whole system of
"justice" is the biggest scam on the planet. That's why they don't allow recording of your
own hearing.
The judiciary regularly get away with complete and utter cheap lies in their judgments. They
are unaccountable as it only takes two more judges to refuse permission to challenge the lies
and that's the end of the matter. In one of my cases I asked to audio-record (my own case).
Both the judge and government barrister insisted I would not be alllowed to record. The
reason for this refusal of recording is so that there is no record of the filthy lies judges
deploy in the smaller civil court rooms where there are no reporters. One important subset of
lies is about the limitation act. Supposedly fact means possibility, knowledge means
suspicion, and was means might be - well that's what high court judges say these words mean,
and the fact that loads of dictionaries say otherwise is of no power against them.
We need every litigant to have the right to record their own cases.
And perhaps that needs review. After all, they are all members of same brotherhood or
society, and all operate from under Londons Bar .So is no independence at all.
My recent experience of JCIO is not entirely sanguine. I represented myself in a child
custody case in Birmingham. The Cafcass favored my child to stay with me. The Circuit Judge
presiding over the case, lied in his judgment three times in order to favor my ex. When I
took the matter to the appeal in High Court, the Law Lord presiding practically said that
because the Circuit Judge is experienced, he is entitled to lie. I was quite gobsmacked. JCIO
were completely unmoved by my protestations. It is apparent that truth is diminished if you
are a layman fighting the excesses of establishment.
The internet is awash with people who have been unfairly treated by the Justice system. Court
observers have commented on the familiarity between Judges and business men in employment
tribunal cases, and the employee losing, and also losing an appeal. Has anybody ever tried to
get an employment judge's notes from the case? Impossible. Ultimately when the judge says the
notes are not to be released under any circumstances (why not if they have nothing to hide)
and the Trbunal President when asked under a data protection request, tells you that the data
controller, is, yes the original judge who won't release them under any circumstances, is it
any wonder that people have no faith in the British Justice system, or should we rename it
Old Boys Network system?
The corrupt protecting the corrupt!
I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who
died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella - abortus equi -
in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian
Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the
MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs
also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to
Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who
supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very
silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party
to the crime.
"The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong" I don't know, I though
Patrick Logicman was spot on with his "But then you couldn't tell them from janitors" remark
above.
Yes but in the midst of the usual press anarchy, a few wise words from Joshua are surely not
out of order?
The predilection of cheap jack town magistrates describing themselves as Judges, takes
some beating. The powers of local authorities to press their own non-criminal "charges" can
be rather unpleasant, and quite happy to present fictitious evidence in abundance, backed up
by such "judges".
If you review most Laws in Britain,USA Canada,etc they were enacted worded and favored the
very rich and property owners when passed. Judge`s hands are really tied to the laws of the
land and it is the rich bias and regulations that keep the poor in their place that Judges
are restricted by when looking to dispense justice [as far as the law allows].
Same applies to the Police they didn`t make the laws.The Justice system and the Police
have been deliberately kept apart from society so they identify more with conservatism and
the status quo and even identify with it as elitists.
The difference is that the father needs to be suspended in case the allegations prove to be
true, because something important is alleged. Here the allegations against the judges seem to
be about nothing - nothing obviously wrong has happened even if the facts are true.
In my experience of the judiciary in criminal trials is that they do have a tendency to
protect the Police and even on the odd occasion pervert the course of justice to protect
them. You cannot assume that any judge will be impartial in any case or inquiry especially if
police corruption is being investigated or has been alleged. In my view you trust a judge to
be independent and impartial at your own risk.
Suspending a judge from duty pending investigation is rather like a judge confining a
separated father to a supervised contact centre while his ex's phony allegations are looked
into. All rather unnecessary but what do you do?
My experience of the judiciary convinces me that it functions principally to protect the
establishment. This is perhaps seen most blatantly in the employment tribunal, where judges
make virtually unchallengeable findings of "fact" that contradict incontrovertible evidence
that they simply ignore in order to exculpate defendants in race and religous discrimination
cases. Sometimes they collude with defendants to pervert the course of justice by accepting
fabricated documents as genuine, despite the existence of the genuine documents showing their
inauthenticity (which they do not mention as they are irreconcilable with the documents that
they wish to represent as genuine). Sometimes, they make important findings based on key
documents that they have never seen, which the claimant dispute ever existed and the
defendants claim they have lost. At other times, the judges just simply lie about the
evidence if that is required to discredit the complainant. Such phenomena are well-documented
(e.g.,
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/culture-of-disbelief-why-race-discrimination-claims-fail-in-the-employment-tribunal/).
However, maybe because sex, drugs and death are not involved - and it only affects Blacks,
after all - no-one seems at all interested, no programmes get made about this or articles get
written in the mainstream media even when prominent journalists have the evidence of its
occurrence.
It is a tradition in this country that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, judges do not
respond to attacks on them in the media. This means that we often hear the attack, but not
the defence. Let me illustrate this with an example from history which shows that judges can
be right, even when non-lawyers think they are obviously wrong.
If the media and some members of Parliament had got their own way, Mr. Justice Grantham
would have been sacked after instructing a jury in strong terms that a prison warder charged
with manslaughter, against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, was nevertheless not
guilty. It transpired about two years later that the single prosecution witness had lied: the
"victim" was dead before the warder entered the room. I understand that the warder was named
Mitchell and, despite being acquitted, did not get his job back.
Had Mr. Justice Grantham been sacked he could not have investigated the Adolph Beck case, the true facts
might never have come out and we might still not have a criminal appeals process.
"The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial
judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck's guilt and had delayed
concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in
this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender
took place."
Source - historybytheyard.co.uk
Each? But then you couldn't tell a judge from a janitor. They tried that in China. It
didn't work. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the wigs and gowns.
The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong. Perhaps self-regulation does
not work for most professions, but in the case of judges it seems to "over-work" and the
desire to ensure that judges are seen as people of integrity seems to take over at times. On
the basis of JR's article, there seems very clearly to be no substance in the allegations
against either Fulford or Thornton. When normal people face such baseless allegations, the
case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it. So the impression here is that the
regulator is afraid to be thought to sweeping things under the carpet and so the process
continues - and absurdity is piled onto absurdity when the judges are even suspended from
work in the meantime.
Turenne and Shetreet's book, referred to in the text, notes instances when judges not only
face complaints but actually receive criticism for doing things which others can do and might
even be expected to do. For example, it seems that judges should plead guilty to minor
traffic offences if they are guilty, and should not seek technical ways that might exist to
defeat the charges (ie ways that are not based on the merits of the case). This may be a good
idea, of course, but it further ridicules any notion that the regulator is soft.
I have for many decades thought that most judges are daft old fools, out of touch with
reality. My opinion has been confirmed by many examples.
I'm not up enough with the law to be able to suggest a better alternative, those who know
what they are talking about should do that. However, I was pleased to see the web site linked to in the article ,
which seems to be a small step in the right direction.
Justice and access to it should be a cornerstone of our society - except that in its
current form, it is reduced to a cleverly disguised commodity - whereby the 'truth' /
'justice' can be purchased by paying for expensive lawyers.
This age old practice of letting "professionals" regulate themselves is thankfully in decline
but not quickly enough. They didn't regulate themselves, they protected each other like
brothers in crime. Lawyers, police, bankers, religious institutions, doctors banded together
to give themselves maximum benefit. And the pompous indignation when Joe Public dared to
question them. I have always felt that these groups pulled the wool over our eyes. I laugh at
the term "professional" often they are far from it.
Who is judging the judges?
We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that
judges themselves judge judges
I find it amusing that a journalist in a National Newspaper is writing an article about a
group of self interested people being able to judge themselves.
Who handles complaints about newspapers? I'll give you a clue with a quote fro the Press
Complaints Commission's website:
The Press Complaints Commission is currently in a phase of transition; and it will soon
be replaced by a new structure of independent self-regulation for the newspaper and
magazine industries.
Self-regulation. Sounds a bit like what the judges do.
One of the key elements of the English judiciary is that it is NOT elected. The executive and
legislature are the elected bits and thus the judiciary must defer to them in terms of
law-making and keep to their own province of interpreting the law - true it can be a fuzzy
line at times but it is a hugely important part of the functioning of the rule of law.
Elected judges would be a disaster for many reasons.
What the UK judiciary gets away with is utterly horrifying. That they palm it off as
'isolated cases' is bad enough, but hiding behind the pretence that people 'don't know the
facts' is even worse.
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
Cue bono in both cases points to British government
"... The widow of poisoned former Russian security officer Aleksandr Litvinenko has denied he
worked for the British intelligence service MI6, a claim made by Russian businessman Andrey
Lugovoy in Moscow last week. ..."
"... The widow of former Russian FSB officer Aleksandr Litvinenko, who was murdered in London
in 2006, admitted that her husband cooperated with the British intelligence services MI5 and MI6.
..."
"... The father of late Russian security officer Aleksandr Litvinenko says he pursued a smear
campaign against the Russian government out of grief, but changed his mind after Aleksandr's
widow revealed his son had been working for British intelligence. ..."
"... It was Berezovsky and Goldfarb. That's it. Goldfarb knows all about atomic energy. How
do you think Aleksandr was first infected with Polonium-210? Why do you think this case has been
dragging for so long? Why has there been no court case? Because they don't have anything, and if
a real court case were to open, it will become apparent who was behind it!" the man said.
..."
"... Aleksandr Goldfarb is the head of Berezovsky's Civil Liberties' Fund. In the weeks prior
and after Litvinenko's death he took the role of an unofficial spokesman for the man, putting the
blame for the crime on the Kremlin ..."
"... For those keeping score, Boris Berezovsky was later found hanging from the ceiling of
his Ascot mansion. ..."
"... There are many things wrong with the "Putin did it" story. For one, there is no motive ,
even with Litvinenko being a critic of Russia, he was no threat whatsoever to Putin. The man
worked with Chechen terrorists and the Israeli-Russian oligarchs . But assuming that there was a
sufficient motive to kill him, think about this: Why would Russia use a very rare, very
expensive, and easily traceable radioactive substance to kill him instead of some cheap poison or
just shooting him? Why risk smuggling radioactive material into the UK which is an act of war?
..."
"... No experienced mob boss like Berezovsky would be dumb enough to murder an underling in
such a manner either. Therefore his death was an accident. It was mostly likely it was a botched
smuggling operation . Why was he moving such a dangerous substance? Did he need fast cash? Were
they planning to create a dirty bomb? Such a "smoky bomb" would turn the Polonium into powder and
kill anyone who ingested it. ..."
"... Traces of Polonium were found on the planes that Litvinenko had been on. So I think we
can deduce what happened. He was a mule . The questions remain, why did he have it?, Where did he
get it? What was he going to do with it? Why was it in the offices of Berezovsky and Erinsys Ltd
(Britain's Blackwater)? ..."
"... Litvinenko was in Israel, where he met Leonid Nevzlin the CEO of Yukos shortly before he
died. If you wanted to buy/steal radioactive material that would be the place. What was he
negotiating with Nevzlin? We learned Alexander had been an informant in a case that led to the
arrest of nine Georgian and Russian Mobsters in Spain, including Alexander Gofstein a lawyer for
Yukos who apparently was laundering money ..."
"... The British military Radiation and Chemical Warfare Center is just down the road, so
they will have had experts on scene pretty rapidly. Latest local rumor is that it's fentanyl, or
some derivative thereof. They had to decontaminate A&E and cancel hospital appointments.
..."
"... The local police and medical personnel are on the ball, I used to know a few. Link to
local paper - they are quite good too http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/ ..."
"... Another false flag. MI5 poisons prominent russian 'baddies' so they can blame it on
Russia. Makes Russian look bad, great for propaganda. ..."
"... Litvinenko said, "Mario Scaramella poised me," from his death bed. Enough said. This has
gonnne on too long. WW# is enviable with a rapturous lying press living and believing in a James
Bond geo political spy moves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Scaramella ..."
"... Polonium, mystery substance, blah, blah, blah! These James Bond spy thriller techniques
smell more of MI6 or CIA than Russia. MI6 and CIA have always been drama queens. ..."
"... Why do drama queen things when you can Seth Rich or Michael Hastings this couple?
..."
"... These are the real professionals. What, if anything happened here is rank amateur- they
should study how its done.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz58vFYg ..."
"... the us and uk intelligence services would not allow you to leave when they are finished
with you as you become a liability in tough financial times.the UK killed the bastard like they
killed litvinenko. ..."
How many times is ZH going to dredge up the discredited fable about Putin ordering
Litvinenko's murder?
First, nobody heard Litvinenko's "deathbed confession" except Alexander Goldfarb, who had
a grudge against Putin and who worked with other shady Russian exiles in London like Boris
Berezovsky.
Litvinenko's wife changed her story. The 2007 version:
The widow of poisoned former Russian security officer Aleksandr Litvinenko has denied he
worked for the British intelligence service MI6, a claim made by Russian businessman Andrey
Lugovoy in Moscow last week.
The 2011 version:
The widow of former Russian FSB officer Aleksandr Litvinenko, who was murdered in London
in 2006, admitted that her husband cooperated with the British intelligence services MI5
and MI6.
From Litvinenko's father in 2012:
The father of late Russian security officer Aleksandr Litvinenko says he pursued a smear
campaign against the Russian government out of grief, but changed his mind after
Aleksandr's widow revealed his son had been working for British intelligence.
Litvinenko's father later told Scotland Yard who he thought was responsible:
" It was Berezovsky and Goldfarb. That's it. Goldfarb knows all about atomic energy. How
do you think Aleksandr was first infected with Polonium-210? Why do you think this case has
been dragging for so long? Why has there been no court case? Because they don't have
anything, and if a real court case were to open, it will become apparent who was behind
it!" the man said.
Boris Berezovsky is an exiled Russian tycoon, who was found guilty of embezzlement in
Russia in an absentia trial. He is currently living in Britain, where he enjoys political
asylum.
Berezovsky employed Litvinenko, who took part in numerous campaigns the billionaire
waged against the Russian government.
Aleksandr Goldfarb is the head of Berezovsky's Civil Liberties' Fund. In the weeks prior
and after Litvinenko's death he took the role of an unofficial spokesman for the man,
putting the blame for the crime on the Kremlin .
Lots of loose ends and unanswered questions about Litvinenko point to British intelligence
and the Russian/Israeli mafia. Which is why Putin must be blamed.
There are many things wrong with the "Putin did it" story. For one, there is no motive ,
even with Litvinenko being a critic of Russia, he was no threat whatsoever to Putin. The man
worked with Chechen terrorists and the Israeli-Russian oligarchs . But assuming that there
was a sufficient motive to kill him, think about this: Why would Russia use a very rare, very
expensive, and easily traceable radioactive substance to kill him instead of some cheap
poison or just shooting him? Why risk smuggling radioactive material into the UK which is an
act of war?
The main thing it is that ANY radioactive substance is traceable to its point of
origin.
There is one country which has not signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and whose
radioactive material can nto be traced ,you guessed it:IS>>>RA>>>EL
Alexander Litvinenko who was formerly FSB fled to the UK to avoid court prosecution in
Russia, worked for a shady Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky. Boris Berezovsky just so
happens to be the Israeli-Russian oligarch who lived in London after fleeing the Russian
judicial system for a multitude of crimes too long to list. He was on Interpol's most wanted
list. Here is the grand prize. After the US and UK press branded Putin with the poisoning
despite there being Zero evidence, (something the US is very well known for now)
investigators were tracking down the traces of Polonium in the UK. They detected traces of
Polonium at Berezovsky's office and residence! Now I do not know about you, but in my place
of work, and certainly in my house, I do not have rare radioactive substances. Polonium is
not something you just get at the market or pick up by accident walking through the park.
No experienced mob boss like Berezovsky would be dumb enough to murder an underling in
such a manner either. Therefore his death was an accident. It was mostly likely it was a
botched smuggling operation . Why was he moving such a dangerous substance? Did he need fast
cash? Were they planning to create a dirty bomb? Such a "smoky bomb" would turn the Polonium
into powder and kill anyone who ingested it.
Traces of Polonium were found on the planes that Litvinenko had been on. So I think we can
deduce what happened. He was a mule . The questions remain, why did he have it?, Where did he
get it? What was he going to do with it? Why was it in the offices of Berezovsky and Erinsys
Ltd (Britain's Blackwater)?
And here comes the best part:
Litvinenko was in Israel, where he met Leonid Nevzlin the CEO of Yukos shortly before he
died. If you wanted to buy/steal radioactive material that would be the place. What was he
negotiating with Nevzlin? We learned Alexander had been an informant in a case that led to
the arrest of nine Georgian and Russian Mobsters in Spain, including Alexander Gofstein a
lawyer for Yukos who apparently was laundering money .
The British military Radiation and Chemical Warfare Center is just down the road, so they
will have had experts on scene pretty rapidly. Latest local rumor is that it's fentanyl, or
some derivative thereof. They had to decontaminate A&E and cancel hospital
appointments.
The local police and medical personnel are on the ball, I used to know a few. Link to
local paper - they are quite good too http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/
Have NOT read. This is the oil, everything you heard and seen pure BS. Litvinenko said,
"Mario Scaramella poised me," from his death bed. Enough said. This has gonnne on too long.
WW# is enviable with a rapturous lying press living and believing in a James Bond geo
political spy moves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Scaramella
ALLRIGHT,
I confess, I poisoned them (with a snickers bar) I am two sheets to the wind with my Make
glorious Vodka for my successful job. Please inform Vlad it went well.
Laughable propaganda comrade ah yes Wikipedia a totally "reliable" source, in which anyone
can "update" posts
And further - as if this hit man would ever implicate Putin fucking idiot. You are correct
about this having gone on for too long. When will Putin be charged with that crime as well as
the numerous other "suspicious deaths" Very similar to cuntlery body count. I wonder why that
is? hmm
As everyone knows Langley write and update all Wiki information. So you use them as the
Devils advocate. If they reveal this you can take it as a starting point. ( The 'Company
wants to pin it on the Russian/Putin ) as they point out Scaramella wanted to be a CIA spy
and had been refused, well o course he helped Whack/poisoned Litvinenko . Might get him his
dream job he had been after ALL HIS LIFE. Polonium is easy to source as well as it is used
extensive throughout South east Asia as a anti static xxxx on weaving machines involved in
Clothing manufacturing.
Don't worry agent Shadewell got it all worked out. Look over their.
Or his final statement? Cemetery in North London . [32]
On 25 November, an article attributed to Litvinenko was published by the Mail on Sunday Online entitled Why I
believe Putin wanted me dead...
[2] In his last statement he said about Putin:
this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present
condition. You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have
shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You
have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised
men and women. You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the
world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive
you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.
[33]
Polonium, mystery substance, blah, blah, blah! These James Bond spy thriller techniques
smell more of MI6 or CIA than Russia. MI6 and CIA have always been drama queens.
Why do drama queen things when you can Seth Rich or Michael Hastings this couple?
When you sell out your country by giving the names of lots of Russian spies, why would you
be surprised to get what you probably deserve? After all, you are a turncoat, a traitor. You
can rail at Putin all you want. You knew the risks in selling out your country. Hard to fault
Putin for making an example of you for others to note.
I wonder if the First Responders who initially were dispatched to what would at first
appear to be a drug overdose were also injured by whatever substance was used? The GRU used
to tell their recruits: Walk through the door and leave by the chimney.
the us and uk intelligence services would not allow you to leave when they are finished
with you as you become a liability in tough financial times.the UK killed the bastard like
they killed litvinenko.
the judge who was in charge of the investigations said"it's PROBABLY the Russians who
killed him". I cannot believe a judge would say probably? where is the evidence
asshole???
"... "Arafat and Litvinenko: an Interesting Turn to a Mysterious Story",
http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/arafat-and-litvinenko-an-interesting-turn-to-a-mysterious-story/
..."
Notable quotes:
"... "Arafat and Litvinenko: an Interesting Turn to a Mysterious Story", http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/arafat-and-litvinenko-an-interesting-turn-to-a-mysterious-story/ ..."
"... "Berezovsky's expatriate friends in Britain and Israel included exiled oligarchs who were subjects of Russian arrest warrants. These included Russian-Israeli businessman Leonid Nevzlin, the former chief executive officer of Yukos Oil, who was the subject of a Russian arrest warrant for murder, embezzlement, and tax evasion. Nevzlin, a former head of the Russian Jewish Congress, resided in Tel Aviv under the protection of the Israeli government. Nevzlin's exiled Russian-Israeli comrades included Vladimir Dubov, a major Yukos shareholder, and wanted oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky. The wanted ex-Yukos officials, who are now allied with the expatriate former chief of Yukos and ex-convict, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, have also been linked to wealthy British businessman Jacob Rothschild. ..."
"... "Much more than circumstantial evidence suggests that Berezovsky, Glushkov, and Patarkatsishvili were murdered by exiled opponents of the Russian government, who also happen to be kingpins in the Eurasian-Israeli mafia that uses Britain as a major base of operations. Britain is favored by these criminal syndicates because of the close working relationship they have with British and American intelligence agencies, as well as with Soros, who maintains a residence in London." ..."
"One thing about the neo-conservatives, who have thoroughly penetrated the Tory government
of British Prime Minister Theresa May and, due to the reality television show savant nature
of Donald Trump, are rapidly filling as many vacancies in the US administration as possible,
is that they are consistent. Neocons, who make no secret of their desire for major military
conflagrations, have dusted off an old playbook with regard to the nerve agent poisoning of
Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England. The convoluted
charges made by the British government bear all the hallmarks of the Polonium-210 radiation
poisoning of ex-Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London in
2006.
"In June 2008, the British government conceded that the government of British Labor Prime
Minister Tony Blair concocted and exaggerated claims about Russia's involvement in the
Litvinenko poisoning in 2006. Apparently, the present government of Mrs. May believes
rational people have no memories of what transpired in Britain twelve years ago.
"The British intelligence services, which had their own relationship with Litvinenko,
could no longer manage to suppress overwhelming evidence that the poisoning of Litvinenko was
the result of a plot by anti-Vladimir Putin criminal syndicates based in Britain, Israel,
Ukraine, and Poland to embarrass the Russian government.
"Suspicions about the role of the exiled Russian-Israeli criminal syndicates in the
poisoning of Litvinenko, including that which was headed by Litvinenko's friend, wanted
Russo-Israeli oligarch Boris Berezovsky, re-surfaced after former Russian Prime Minister
Yegor Gaidar became violently ill after eating breakfast at a conference he was attending in
Dublin, Ireland. Ireland's banking secrecy laws has made it a favorite location for the
Eurasian-Israeli Mafia.
"Berezovsky's own suspicious death in March 2013 discovery of Berezovsky's body in his
Ascot estate in England suggested that the anti-Russian crime syndicates, which work closely
with hedge fund billionaire troublemaker George Soros and the Central Intelligence Agency,
eliminated Berezovsky because he was about to reveal the nature of the syndicates to the
Russian government. Most media reports coming out of Britain, at the time, claimed that
Berezovsky died from natural causes. A few others suggested suicide or murder. Interestingly,
Berezovsky had recently received medical treatment in Israel.
"Berezovsky's expatriate friends in Britain and Israel included exiled oligarchs who
were subjects of Russian arrest warrants. These included Russian-Israeli businessman Leonid
Nevzlin, the former chief executive officer of Yukos Oil, who was the subject of a Russian
arrest warrant for murder, embezzlement, and tax evasion. Nevzlin, a former head of the
Russian Jewish Congress, resided in Tel Aviv under the protection of the Israeli government.
Nevzlin's exiled Russian-Israeli comrades included Vladimir Dubov, a major Yukos shareholder,
and wanted oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky. The wanted ex-Yukos officials, who are now allied with
the expatriate former chief of Yukos and ex-convict, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, have also been
linked to wealthy British businessman Jacob Rothschild.
"Berezovsky ran from exile a major support network for Chechen terrorists. One of their
leaders, Ahmed Zakayev, was a close associate of Berezovsky and Litvinenko.
"Just like Litvinenko, Yulia Skripal had her own reported connections to Russian and
Western intelligence services, suggesting that she, like Litvinenko, had embarked on a
dangerous life as a double or triple agent. Yulia Skripal worked for the 'information center'
at the US embassy in Moscow and at the Holiday Inn in Southampton in England. Hotel jobs are
a preferred 'non-official cover' position for the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6).
Until his arrest by Russian authorities, Sergei Skripal was a paid agent for MI-6. In 2010,
he was given asylum in Britain after a major spy swap between the United States and
Russia.
"The nerve agent reportedly used on Skripal and his daughter was a 'Novichok'
('Newcomer'), one of a series of binary agents allegedly developed in the Soviet Union during
the Cold War. These nerve agents were also apparently stockpiled at the British biological
and chemical warfare research facility at Porton Down, a mere eight miles from Salisbury,
where the Skripals took ill.
"But the existence of Novichok is, itself questionable. Claims about Novichok originally
came from Vil Mirzayanov, a Soviet chemical weapons scientist who claimed to have invented
Novichok at a facility in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1994, Mirzayanov fled to
the United States, where he came under the control of the CIA. In 2016, Dr. Robin Black, the
chief of the Detection Laboratory in Porton Down, published an academic paper that questioned
the veracity of Mirzayanov's Novichok claims.
"The poisoning of the Skripals was followed shortly by the death in London of Berezovsky's
longtime business colleague and friend Nikolai Glushkov. British police called Glushkov's
death 'suspicious,' citing as the cause 'compression to the neck.' Berezovsky died as the
result of a hanging, believed by police to be a 'suicide.' Radioactive traces of the
Polonium-210 used to poison Litvinenko were traced to Berezovsky's office at 7 Down Street,
in London's Mayfair district. In 2008, Badri Patarkatsishvili, Berezovsky's Georgian-Israeli
business partner, collapsed and died at his home a mere 15 miles from Berezovsky's English
estate. The death of the 52-year old was determined by authorities to be the result of a
'heart attack.'
"Much more than circumstantial evidence suggests that Berezovsky, Glushkov, and
Patarkatsishvili were murdered by exiled opponents of the Russian government, who also happen
to be kingpins in the Eurasian-Israeli mafia that uses Britain as a major base of operations.
Britain is favored by these criminal syndicates because of the close working relationship
they have with British and American intelligence agencies, as well as with Soros, who
maintains a residence in London."
Aside from the obvious legalized bribery (Citizens United), the absolute control of the
corrupt 2-party system, the oligarchic and utterly undemocratic mass media, etc., we also had
the case in 2000 that a bunch of unelected dictators-for-life "decided" the US election,
clearly unlawfully. Bush vs. Gore.
Yes, US is in no position to be lecturing anybody about "democracy". But US is not short
on chutzpah in any political realm.
If elections resulted in real change, Yankees wouldn't have them. All theater for the
zombies, aka the voting class. Only zombies would argue over the merits of the candidates.
The US needs very little from its citizens. These includes obedience, widespread ignorance
and the unquestioned belief they live in a Democracy because voting happens.
The best slaves are the ones that lack the intelligence to recognize their own slavery.
The happiest slaves know that voting is a rigged sham but don't care because the right master
leads them.
Now, that I believe. Due to dismal school system (purely parochial, no national standards,
local boards full of ignoramuses decide what kids are taught in school) too many Americans
sincerely believe that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main street,
out-of-town, and overseas. I guess the election results in the last few decades show this
clearly.
Alas, I stayed with USA friends, well educated middle class, where CNN was the only 'news'
source.
Three other USA acquaintances I visited in their homes, cannot remember having seen a
newspaper other than a local one about marriages and funerals.
The USA reminded me of the Peking court, that, when British warships were reported on the
coast, responded with 'there had been so many pirates already'.
In the Badlands, in a very small café, I identified myself as Dutch, from Holland,
Netherlands. When all this did not ring bell I mentioned Europe, the first time in my life.
This was understood.
Anon from TN
Maybe I overestimate American citizens (I work at a top-rate University and communicate
mostly with faculty and grad students), but I'd like to come to their defense. CNN (as well
as FOX news, NYT, and other MSM) represent the views of the lower half of US citizens by IQ.
As far as I can tell, blatant lies of Western propaganda achieved among the people with
brains the same result as the Soviet propaganda: even if they state something truthful for a
change, people would doubt that.
You're truly delusional if you think CNN does NOT represent average American thinking, at
least a large paart of it. Last week I suffered through a luncheon of 5 mature adults
extolling Rachel Maddow. Sickening.
"... Well, the party lime is pretty different: "Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is. Whether the Skripal poisoning can be conclusively pinned on Moscow is beside the point." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/u-k-spy-poisoning-treat-russia-like-the-terrorist-it-is ..."
"... The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person. ..."
"... In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be manufactured it any relatively developed country. ..."
"... It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the KGB successor of the successor of the VChK. ..."
"... Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union. ..."
I'm a socialist. I don't understand how a conservative is getting this so right! There is a mad
rush to judgment and anyone who wants to ask questions is getting accused of being unpatriotic.
Quite a sensible article. The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from
the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person.
In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a
known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a
minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas
has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be
manufactured it any relatively developed country.
It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by
the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the
KGB successor of the successor of the VChK.
At the end of 1980s there was a project started by KGB supposed (1) to detect possible channels
of security leakage, and (2) to begin spreading misinformation to potential adversaries.
Different names were used to test different security leaks. The name "NOVICHOK" used to
identify misinformation given to one of suspects, Vil Mirzayanov who was not chemist but rather
a clerk. Very soon this security leakage was detected, and tons of other misinformation
supplied to Mirzayanov, who was immediately secretly discharged from access to any real
project. Mirzayanov was allowed to publish this fake info in NYT (around 1992-95?), and then to
escape from Russia in 1995.
Since that time NATO has spent about $10 billions to develop protection tools against this
fake "NOVICHOK"
P.S. The Russian word NOVICHOK stands for "a newbie"; from Russian grammar point of view,
there is no chance such word to be assigned to any chemical weapon. It was assigned to
Mirzayanov who was "a newbie" to this sort of projects at that time.
Cui bono: every murder of a Russian dissident/defector/oligarch/critical journalist, cannot
possibly have happened on Putin's orders or with his tacit approval, because it reflects badly
on Russia.
So, we have two possible explanations: some Western intelligence agency is murdering those
people, probably without the knowledge of their own government (you'd have think that someone
in elected office would have stopped such a programme by now); or the Russian Putin opposition
is killing its own people, both in Russia and abroad. If the goal of such an operation is the
destabilization of the Putin regime through Western sanctions, it is obviously not working.
You say cui bono, I say Occam's razor. Putin takes out those who might threaten him, raises
his popularity, the sanctions are used to cover up his own disastrous economical policies, and
in the end nothing changes.
We *knew* Iraq had no nukes, and we knew that the Bush administration lied, and we knew that
"WMD" is the kind of BS we make up when there are no nukes.
Buchanan is not arguing in good faith. What Maine, Tonkin and WMD are about is *lies*, lies
in service of criminal acts of aggression, lies to facilitate a premeditated violation of the
Constitution as well as international law.
That is frankly a more important issue than the – justified and necessary –
doubts regarding the attempted Skripal assassination and the motives behind it.
This is also true of an ongoing campaign employing drones – some controlled by CIA
illegal combatants – and kill teams to implement collective punishment and ideological
cleansing by means of sustained assassination – based on "signatures" provided by the
likes of Google or Booz Allen. The US has no standing to judge the assassination attempts of
others, just as our government can no longer meaningfully speak out on aggressive acts of war,
collective punishment, and torture. A house divided cannot stand for anything.
You say that the burden of proof is on the accused? That works in many parts of the world,
but I hope that we here in the US have had a better standard of Justice. The burden of proof
falls upon the accuser, in this case Britain. There is no ther standard that America should
accept if we are to remain true to American principals. Not that I expect that our current
oligarchy will care about principals.
Exactly. Putin's long term strategy is an integrated Pan-Eurasian economic architecture in
which Europe would be a major customer segment. That is why the EAEU was stood up by Russia and
the BRI stood up by China. With supporting investment platforms like the AIIB to enable the
initiatives.
Given that objective, why would Russia/Putin seek to totally wreck its relationship with
Europe? More importantly what would be the motive and objectives for Russia to attack Poland
and the Baltic Republics – the fear-monger threats du jour? When an overrun of Poland
would create 30+ million subversive malcontents that Russia would have to govern, and when
there are only minority ethnic Russian populations in the Baltics?
The driving force behind the illogical and incoherent demonization of Russia is the
Washington War Party that froths up the political environment with the militarized
fear-mongering. Because as Fran Macadam notes, there's Big Money in it. And the Neocon
war-monger mouthpieces need some Big Enemies to keep themselves relevant, busy and living very
large on the $200K – $600K salaries they collect at the bought off Think
Pimp Tanks.
A crazed U.S. foreign policy that has been completely militarized is a train wreck waiting
to happen. And us taxpayers will yet again be stuck with the bills to clean up the
wreckage.
Sovietologists? Now this, more than anything else, explains the reflexive anti-Russia
hysteria. Who cares what historians dealing with the twentieth century Soviet Union think about
current events? Historians provide useful insight, yes, but that does not mean they are
conversant with current events. What you are doing is throwing in a fear laden buzzword.
Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from
what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union.
Our leaders are enthusiastic about being aggressive with the Russians, but the America Empire
has a problem attracting enough volunteers to join the military.
For example, the Air Force has a shortage of 2,000 pilots and the Navy has a shortage of
mechanics that they need to work on their on their aircraft.
The U.S. and Britain showed more respect to Joseph Stalin, the Butcher, than it has shown to
Putin. The demonization of Putin in all the mainstream media outlets is the tip-off to me that
Putin must be a pretty good guy doing some good things for Russia.
"If the world hates you know that it has hated me first. If the world loves you it is
because you belong to the world." -- Jesus Christ
>>Given the poison used it means one to two things -- either it was Russian secret
services or the Russians have lost control over their poisons. Either one is a nasty thought.
Why? It was presumably created 40 years ago. Pretty much to time for information to spread
around.
E.g., Kim's brother was presumably (again) poisoned by VX. Does it mean that it was MI-6? It's
a British invention after all.
In any case, this story stinks, pardon for a word pun. A 'military grade agent' and no
casualties. How could it be?
>>Why do it? To prove they can. To prove that no matter where you go they can get
you -- that there is no safety.
Safety from what? This guy was non-entity, nobody knew him. More importantly, he has been
already punished and pardoned, so double no sense.
>>I am sure Gary Kasparov is feeling a bit worried right now and Bill Browder is
thinking of moving somewhere new.
Well, I'd suspect that Rodchenko and Khodorkovskiy are more evident sacrificial targets.
Pat asks important questions. Unless we ever see the "evidence" to which Boris Johnson refers,
or other direct evidence that this hit (and others) in Britain was directed by the Kremlin,
it's worth continuing to ask them.
"Who benefits?" Indeed, it could be rogue Russian agents or Western agents attempting to
further drive a wedge between the West and Russia.
But it could also be Putin signalling that the Russia which held onto traitorous spies
between 2006 and 2010 is over.
It could be him simply trying to show that he can reach people inside the West, a pure flexing
of muscle, a warning to future would-be traitors and Western governments. It could be to
make America's allies nervous about Putin's relationship with his American puppet, Trumpolini.
It could be just Putin sowing chaos and attempting to create discord among Western
governments.
Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still applies. If it
growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Who could be so phillistine as to suggest, on the eve of the World Cup, that Premier Andropov's
KGB protege', Major Putin, would one day stoop to whacking a traitorous defector from the Party
Line ?
>>Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still
applies. If it growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Occam's Razor, my backside. Some guys from MI-5 tried to kill him like they killed David
Kelly and Gareth Williams before. It's as credible as it gets, exactly the same amount of
evidence.
"... So a non lethal dose of nerve agent, as would be possible with a handling error, a trace from an imperfect seal perhaps of a small sample, happens within a few miles of a facility, the only facility in Britain, that has quantities of that particular nerve agent on hand. If you can believe Boris Johnson. One victim is connected to the false flag 'chemical attacks' occurring in Syria. I wonder how good security really is at Porton Down? ..."
The British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson now
admits that Porton Down (illegally?) had 'Novichok' agents BEFORE the incident happened.
Deutsche Welle: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did
you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
BJ: Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton
Down, the laboratory
DW: So they have the samples
BJ: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said,
"Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
No doubt = "of a type developed by Russia" NOT= "made by Russia"!
So a non lethal dose of nerve agent, as would be possible with a handling error, a trace
from an imperfect seal perhaps of a small sample, happens within a few miles of a facility,
the only facility in Britain, that has quantities of that particular nerve agent on hand. If
you can believe Boris Johnson. One victim is connected to the false flag 'chemical attacks'
occurring in Syria. I wonder how good security really is at Porton Down?
First of all British did have the poison they detected. Otherwise they would be unable to
detect "Novichok" (if there was such substance and this is not just a myth).
Notable quotes:
"... Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now. ..."
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam and ever since then I have been a card-carrying
skeptic of my own country. But I saw the human face of a war based upon lies and propaganda
that became the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. If we would get into a
shooting war over this affair, we would have to bring back the draft to prosecute this war
against Russia. Then the proverbial "merde" would definitely hit the fan.
And when Kim Sung Un assassinated his half-brother in Malaysia, the VX nerve agent was used.
The UK invented this agent in the 1950s at its government laboratory. But not one nation blamed
Great Britain as the culprit.
Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US
along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex.
Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man
based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at
work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda
reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially
said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now.
"... DW: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it? ..."
"... DW: So they have the samples ..."
"... The "White Helmets" propaganda group in Syria was founded and is run by the former(?) British army intelligence officer James Le Mesurier with British and U.S. government money. His former(?) colleague de Bretton-Gordon is running the parallel Syria chemical weapon scam. Both profit from their government financed operations. ..."
"... Other British agents involved in the Skripal case are Pablo Miller who recruited Skripal for the MI6. He was a friend of Skripal, also lived in Salisbury and worked for Christopher Steele, the former(?) MI6 agent who produced the 'dirty dossier' about Donald Trump for the Clinton campaign. Both are involved with Russian mafia emigres in Britain like Boris Berezovski and the deceased Alexander Litvinenko who's father says that he was killed by an MI6 or CIA guy. ..."
"... How could the British government be sure of "Russian" involvement within a week and even expel Russian diplomats when the primary chemical experts on the issue will need three weeks for their first analyses and the British police predicts a several months long investigation? ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... I doubt the MSM will let the public know that NoviChok was a term coined by a ex-soviet scientist, perhaps to sell a book, after he moved to the US. In general the western public will continue think the Russians researched and produced this deadly stuff called Novichok and were lying about doing so. Perception management. ..."
"... So a non lethal dose of nerve agent, as would be possible with a handling error, a trace from an imperfect seal perhaps of a small sample, happens within a few miles of a facility, the only facility in Britain, that has quantities of that particular nerve agent on hand. If you can believe Boris Johnson. One victim is connected to the false flag 'chemical attacks' occurring in Syria. I wonder how good security really is at Porton Down? ..."
"... "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code name of a KGB disinformation operation -- per Andrey Lazarchuk here (at end of Shamir post) ..."
"... When Russia were asking for evidence and pushing for an OPCW investigation, this was just stalling according to the Brits. When the Uk gave their evidence to OPCW, they had no blood test results, no documented data of traces of poison or any other tests. ..."
"... Relying purely on propaganda to push it through, perhaps relying on bigger things happening in Syria to pull attention away and prevent any serious investigation taking place. ..."
"... Boris and May seem to be no more than extremely enthusiastic cannon fodder in this game, now having to see the narrative through on their own. ..."
"... A very strongly worded statement ..."
"... The "attack" on the Skripals is described as a "gross folly" by Russia and as a hoax by numerous writers and others like myself. The more the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals try to smear Russia, the more their credibility diminishes. Combined with the Cambridge Analytica revelations, the plan to demonize Russia has grossly failed as the real demons get revealed. ..."
"... "Bypassing the official diplomatic channels, Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri Guerassimov contacted his US counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fear of a false flag chemical attack in Ghouta. Dunford took this information vey seriously, and alerted US Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, who referred the matter to President Donald Trump. In view of the Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy.".. ..."
"... "We do not know the result of this internal enquiry, but President Trump acquired the conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated. The Secretary of State was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to Washington.". ..."
"... Don Bacon @13 linked to a piece at UNZ Revue and the note by Andrey Lazarchuk at the bottom of the article which is interesting. According to that, Mirzayanov was Identified as a leak early on, and then used to transmit false information. It is noticeable that Mirzayanov Used a letter plus three digits for the designation code of the chemicals, whereas the scientist that actually worked on developing new compounds uses a letter plus four digits for the designation codes. ..."
"... The compounds Mirzayanov has in his book, A-232 and so forth, were most likely genuine compounds that had been discarded by the soviet scientists, given a new designation code and a name for the group and fed to Mirzayan. ..."
Russian Scientists Explain 'Novichok' - High Time For Britain To Come Clean
(Updated)
A week ago we asked
if 'Novichok' poisons are real. The answer is now in: It is 'yes' and 'no'. Several Russian
scientist now say that they once researched and developed lethal poisons but they assert that
other countries can and have copied these. 'Novichok', they say, is a just western propaganda
invention. They see the British accusations as a cynical plot against Russia. The people who
push the 'Novichok' accusations have political and commercial interests.
The British Prime Minister Theresa May
insinuated that the British-Russian double agent Sergej Skripal and his daughter Yulia, who
collapsed on March 4 on a public bench in Salisbury, were affected by a 'Russian' nerve
agent:
It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve
agent of a type developed by Russia . It is part of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok
.
Theresa May's claims are highly questionable.
Maria Zakharova, spokeswomen of the Russian Foreign Ministry: "'Novichok' has never
been used in the USSR or in Russia as something related to the chemical weapon
research" - bigger
A highly potent nerve agent would hurt anyone who comes in contact with it. But the BBC
reported that a doctor who administered first aid to the collapsed Yulia Skripal for 30 minutes
was not affected at all .
Another doctor, Steven Davies who heads the emergence room of the Salisbury District Hospital,
wrote in a letter the London Times :
"... no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there
have only been ever been three patients with significant poisoning."
The name 'Novichok' comes from a book
written by Vil Mirzanyanov, a 1990s immigrant to the U.S. from the former Soviet Union. It
describe his work at Soviet chemical weapon laboratories and lists the chemical formulas of a
new group of lethal substances.
AFPinterviewed
the author of the 'Novichok' book about the Salisbury incident:
Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia
carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
...
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to
make such a weapon .
"Russia did it", says Mirzanyanov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".
A 'Novichok' nerve agent plays a role in the current seasons of the British-American spy
drama Strike
Back which broadcasts on British TV. Theresa May might have watched this clip (vid) from the
series. Is it a source of her allegations?
The Russian government rejects the British allegations and demands evidence which Britain
has not provided. Russia joined the Chemical Weapon Convention in 1997. By 2017 it had
destroyed
all its chemical weapons and chemical weapon production facilities. Under the convention only
very limited amounts of chemical weapon agents are allowed to be held in certified laboratories for
defense research and testing purposes. The U.S. has such laboratories at Fort Detrick in
Frederick, Maryland , the British lab is in Porton Down, a few miles from Salisbury. The
Russian lab is in Shikhany
in the southern Saratov Oblast. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
audits these laboratories and their declared stocks "down to the milligram level".
The spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry and famous high heels folk dancer (vid) Maria Zakharova
explains in a TV interview (vid, English
subtitles) that 'Novichok' was not and is not the name of any Soviet or Russian program. The
word was introduced in the "west" simply because it sounded Russian.
Western media claimed that Vil Miranzayanov is the developer of the 'Novichok' chemicals. It
turns out that this is not the case. Interviews with two retired Russian chemists, both
published only yesterday, tell the real story. The Russia news agency RIA Novostnitalked with
Professor Leonid Rink (
machine translation ):
Did you have anything to do with creating what the British authorities call the "Novice"?
- Yes. This was the basis of my doctoral dissertation.
At that time I worked in Shikhany, in the branch of GosNIIOKhT (State Research Institute
of Organic Chemistry and Technology, during Soviet times was engaged in the development of
chemical weapons), was a leading researcher and head of the laboratory.
Professor Rink says that:
'Novichok' or 'novice' was never used as a program name. New Soviet formulas had
alphanumeric codes.
Several new nerve agents were developed in Shikhany in the 1970s and 80s.
These new substances can cause immediate deadly reactions when applied to humans.
Vil Mirzayanov was head of the chromatographer group, chemists who deals with the
separation and analysis of various mixtures of substances. He was responsible for
environmental control and not a developer of any new substances.
The Associated Press
summarizes other parts of the interview with Professor Rink:
Rink told Russia's state RIA Novosti news agency Tuesday that Britain and other western
nations easily could have synthesized the nerve agent after chemical expert Vil Mirzayanov
emigrated to the United States and revealed the formula.
Echoing Russian government statements, Rink says it wouldn't make sense for Moscow to
poison Sergei Skripal, a military intelligence officer who spied for Britain, because he was
a used asset "drained" by both Russia and Britain.
He claims Britain's use of the name Novichok for the nerve agent is intended to convince
the public that Russia is to blame.
The English-Russian magazine The Bell
interviews another Russian scientists involved in the issue:
The Bell was able to find and speak with Vladimir Uglev, one of the scientists who was
involved in developing the nerve agent referred to as "Novichok". [...] Vladimir Uglev,
formerly a scientist with Volsk branch of GOSNIIOKHT ("State Scientific-Research Institute
for Organic Chemistry and Technology"), which developed and tested production of new lethal
substances since 1972, spoke for the first time about his work as early as the 1990s. He left
the institute in 1994 and is now retired.
– The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs insists that there was no research nor
development of any substance called "Novichok", not in Russia, nor in the USSR. Is that
true?
– In order to make it easier to understand the subject matter, I will not use the
name "Novichok" which has is now commonly used by everyone to describe those four substances
which were conditionally assigned to me to develop over a period of several years. Three of
these substances are part of the "Foliant" program, which was led by Pyotr Kirpichev, a
scientist with GOSNIIOKHT (State Scientific-Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and
Technology). The first substance of a new class of organophosphorous chemical agents, I will
call it "A-1972", was developed by Kirpichev in 1972. In 1976, I developed two substances:
"B-1976" and "C-1976". The fourth substance, "D-1980", was developed by Kirpichev in the
early 1980s. All of these substances fall under the group referred to as "Novichkov", but
that name wasn't given to the substances by GOSNIIOKHT.
All four chemical agents are "FOS" or organophosphorous compounds which have a nerve
paralyzing effect, but they differ in their precursors, how they were discovered and in their
usage as agents of chemical warfare.
The four substances were developed by Pyotr Kirpichev and Vladimir Uglev. These substances
were not readily usable by the military as they could not be safely transported and used in the
field like binary chemical weapons can. Once
synthesized they were extremely dangerous. Professor Leonid Rink, working later in a different
group, tackled the problem but did not succeed. Uglev confirms that Vil Miranzayanov was not
involved in the development at all. His group was responsible chemical analysis and for
environmental control around the laboratory.
Vladimir Uglev, like Renk and Miranzayanov, notes that these agents "of a type developed by
Russia" can now be produced by any sufficiently equipped laboratory, including private
ones.
Uglev mentions a criminal use of one of the agents in the 1990s:
One of these substances was used to poison the banker, Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary in
1995. A cotton ball, soaked in this agent, was rubbed over the microphone in the handset of
Kivelidi's telephone. That specific dose was developed by my group, where we produced all of
the chemical agents, and each dose which we developed was given its own complete
physical-chemical passport. It was therefore not difficult to determine who had prepared that
dose and when it was developed. Naturally, the investigators also suspected me. I was
questioned several times about this incident.
Journalist Mark Ames, who worked in Moscow at that time, remarks :
This muddles the narrative a bit -- "novichok" used in 1995 Moscow mafia poison hit on top
mobster Ivan Kivelidi. So:
1) novichok [is] in mob hands too
2) used during reign of #1 Mobfather Boris Yeltsin, Washington's vassal
Uglev further notes that blood samples from the Salisbury victims, which Moscow demands but
Britain has not handed over, can show what agent (if any) were involved and "where the specific
dose was produced and by whom."
A new article in the New Scientists
confirms the claims by the Russian scientists that the 'Novichok' agents which may have
affected the Skripals may have been produced elsewhere:
Weapons experts have told New Scientist that a number of countries legally created small
amounts of Novichok after it was revealed in 1992 and a production method was later
published.
In 2016 Iranian scientists, in cooperation with the OPCW,
published production and detection methods for such agents. It is likely that the various
government labs secretly re-developed and produced these chemicals for their own purposes even
prior to the Iranian publication.
[ UPDATE ] In an interview with Deutsche Welle British Foreign Minister Boris
Johnson
admits that Proton Down had (illegal?) 'Novichok' agents when the incident in Salisbury
happened:
DW: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you
manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Boris Johnson: Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people
from Porton Down, the laboratory
DW: So they have the samples
Boris Johnson: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I
said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
But Porton Down did not agree with the British government to claim that the supposed nerve
agent was "made by Russia." It only agreed to
the compromise formulation "of a type developed by Russia" i.e. it could have been made
anywhere. [End Update]
The claims by the British government that a. the Skripals were affected by a nerve agent and
that b. Russia was involved in the Skripal incident because it has some exclusive access to
these agents seem both baseless. Unless there is significant further evidence the British
incrimination of Russia looks like a cynical plot invented for political and/or commercial
purposes.
As usual in the military-industrial complex the people who push such scares, are the ones
who profit from them.
The British Morning Starpoints
to one former British military intelligence officer, Colonel (rtd) Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, as
a common protagonist in the Skripal case, in the claims of Syrian chemical weapon use and in
commercial interests around chemical weapon defense:
Quoted daily by multiple media outlets on the Skripal case, de Bretton-Gordon has become a
very public expert, relied upon for unbiased comment and analysis by the British and foreign
media on chemical weapon threats from Salisbury to Syria.
He is a former assistant director of Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Land
Forces with the Ministry of Defence. Before that de Bretton-Gordon was commanding officer of
Britain's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and Nato's Rapid
Reaction CBRN Battalion.
While his CBRN background is often mentioned, his military intelligence links are rarely
referred to publicly.
Long before the Salisbury event, de Bretton-Gordon was urging greater government
expenditure on chemical protection counter-measures and equipment.
...
de Bretton-Gordon is managing director CBRN of Avon Protection Systems, based in Melksham,
Wiltshire.
...
In 2017, the company made £50m from its US military contracts and a further
£63.3m from other "protection and defence" revenue.
The former(?) army intelligence officer is also deeply involved in the "moderate rebels"
chemical weapon scams in Syria:
On April 29 2014, the [Daily Telegraph] reported that it "obtained soil samples collected
from sites of chemical attacks inside Syria by Dr Ahmad -- a medic whose real identity cannot
be revealed for his own protection -- who had previously received training in sample
collection by western chemical weapons experts.
"Mr de Bretton-Gordon, a British chemical weapons expert and director of Secure Bio, a
private company, was one of the trainers."
And who carried out the tests? None other than de Bretton-Gordon himself.
The "White Helmets" propaganda group in Syria was founded and is run by the former(?)
British army intelligence officer James Le Mesurier with British and U.S. government money. His
former(?) colleague de Bretton-Gordon is running the parallel Syria chemical weapon scam. Both
profit from their government financed operations.
Other British agents involved in the Skripal case are
Pablo Miller who recruited
Skripal for the MI6. He was a friend of Skripal, also lived in Salisbury and worked for
Christopher Steele, the former(?) MI6 agent who produced the 'dirty dossier' about Donald Trump
for the Clinton campaign. Both are involved with Russian
mafia emigres in Britain like Boris Berezovski and the deceased Alexander Litvinenko who's
father says
that he was killed by an MI6 or CIA guy.
While the British government blamed the Russians just a week after the incident in Salisbury
happened it now seems interested in delaying any further investigations. It took more than two
weeks after the incident for the British government to invite the OPCW to help with the case.
The head of the OPCW says it will take another three
weeks for the organization to analyze the samples the British laboratory now handed over.
The British police requires
several months to find out what happened to the Skripals.
How could the British government be sure of "Russian" involvement within a week and even
expel Russian diplomats when the primary chemical experts on the issue will need three weeks
for their first analyses and the British police predicts a several months long
investigation?
The Russian scientist and their government have explained their history and position in
relation to 'Novichoks' and the Skripal incident. It is high time now for the British
government, its scientists at Porton Down and its greedy mafia of former(?) British
intelligence officer and their criminal Russian emigres to come clean about their own roles in
it.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the Skripal case:
How could the British government be sure of "Russian" involvement within a week when the
primary chemical experts on the issue will need three weeks for their first analyses and
the police predicts a several months long investigation?
Because they're hard out lying -- their political lives depended on it.
Thank you, b, for including the commercial possibilities when writing about the
military/intelligence escapades perpetrated by the US and it's minions. Few others in the
media ever look at these incidents from an economic point of view, yet we live in a world
where Markets are worshiped as the Prime Mover.
Cui Bono? always seems to be a useful approach in determining motives and
connections.
And oops... here is Hamish de Bretton-Gordon prophesying on BBC in 16 February 2018:
"In the new "Cold War" with Russia, Nato must be prepared for chemical weapon usage.
Though Russia and the US have destroyed their chemical stocks, they still maintain the
capability to produce new ones, and there is speculation that research has been done on new
super chemicals many times more potent than nerve agents like Sarin and VX.
All have seen how effective chemical weapons have been in Syria and Iraq, especially in
fighting in built-up areas, and if there is conflict between East and West we must now assume
that chemical weapons will be used.
This sadly being the case, quite apart from the very real threat of terrorist use,
anywhere any time, Nato needs to re-invest in its chemical defence capabilities and be
prepared to fight in this "dirty" environment - or we could quickly be rolled over by a
concerted attack from the East.
B, you are mean. You are denying Theresa May her Margaret Thatcher moment where she
gets to stand up in Parliament and make a momentous speech about the United Kingdom standing
tall on behalf of the world.
Why make a reference ... 'since WW2', even Hitler never used chemical weapons, wouldn't a
reference to WW1 have been more appropriate? Oh yeah, by invoking WW2 you can make a rather
obvious parallel between Putin and Hitler. Go for it Theresa May, hell always has room for
more liars, especially self-righteous ones.
Thanks b. I think UK was relying on full US support to push the Novichok scam through, which
was not forthcoming. The brits will most likely end with some egg on their faces, but I
doubt the MSM will let the public know that NoviChok was a term coined by a ex-soviet
scientist, perhaps to sell a book, after he moved to the US. In general the western public
will continue think the Russians researched and produced this deadly stuff called Novichok
and were lying about doing so. Perception management.
An excellent analysis as seems to be almost always the case here. As always, Canada plays
devil's little helper. FM Chrystia Freeland proposed a motion condemning Russia which passed
unanimously. As was the case when Canada bombed Libya. No proof necessary...
Establishing that Porton Down probably lied about having analyzed traces of the fragmentation
(!) products of the allegedly used poison raises other questions. Why did they choose such a
thorny path? Why didn't they use ricin against the background of the poisoning of Georgi
Markov by a secret service of a Warsaw Pact country? Why not botulinum? Both are by no means
traceable to an origin and this enhances a suspicion against FSB or GRU based on the identity
of the victims.
A manifest thesis, often brought about, those typical assassination weapons were dismissed
because they are useless in a bigger follow-up incident. It is often assumed the use of
"novichok" was meant either as precursor or threat with a false flag attack in Syria, but
that is against logic. DoS annonced to hold Russia responsible for a weapons grade chemical
attack in Syria months ago, also hinting at bringing it to the ICC. They could have used, or
can use VX to mimic a "Russian" attack in Syria.
But with the EU it's different! Perpetrators in Porton Down and within the British
Government had to assume, that they might have to go an "extra mile" in implicating Russia in
a chemical attack on the European Continent to deny the EU the loophole of accounting it to
"Sarin" and "ISIS".
The preliminary result: A lightning fast postponement of Brexit for 9 month to the end of
2019, to British conditions afaik. Brussels denied them to the UK fiercely even around 8 days
before. It's not all about Russia - at least not directly.
The British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson now
admits that Porton Down (illegally?) had 'Novichok' agents BEFORE the incident happened.
Deutsche Welle: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did
you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
BJ: Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton
Down, the laboratory
DW: So they have the samples
BJ: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said,
"Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
No doubt = "of a type developed by Russia" NOT= "made by Russia"!
So a non lethal dose of nerve agent, as would be possible with a handling error, a trace
from an imperfect seal perhaps of a small sample, happens within a few miles of a facility,
the only facility in Britain, that has quantities of that particular nerve agent on hand. If
you can believe Boris Johnson. One victim is connected to the false flag 'chemical attacks'
occurring in Syria. I wonder how good security really is at Porton Down?
Great ongoing coverage of this trumped up situation.
I believe that this event was suppose to be another war igniting spark that is fizzling
out. Maybe the approach is to overwhelm folks with a multitude of "could be" situations with
Russian names until ignition and blast off. If they get ignition then they can bury all the
fake scaffold leading to the spark.
I keep hoping for a flip by one of he slimeball insiders to tell the world how the
puppeteers of our world keep the play of empire in motion. Then maybe some eyes will
open.
"I think, in the first instance, if I may respectfully say to the Kremlin detectives, we
will trust to the technical experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons. Let's see what their assessment is. That's the proper procedure that the UK has to
follow under the Chemical Weapons Treaty. And, you know, I just have to say that I find the
Russian position about what has happened to this Novichok increasingly bizarre."
When Russia were asking for evidence and pushing for an OPCW investigation, this was
just stalling according to the Brits. When the Uk gave their evidence to OPCW, they had no
blood test results, no documented data of traces of poison or any other tests.
Relying purely on propaganda to push it through, perhaps relying on bigger things
happening in Syria to pull attention away and prevent any serious investigation taking
place.
Boris and May seem to be no more than extremely enthusiastic cannon fodder in this
game, now having to see the narrative through on their own.
"Vil Mirzayanov was head of the chromatographer group, chemists who deals with the separation
and analysis of various mixtures of substances. He was responsible for environmental control
and not a developer of any new substances."
This seems to impinge on Mirzayanov's credibility as he said he was one of the developers
of the agent. Neil Clark
muses about how the famous fictional detective Poirot would investigate this alleged
crime.
A
very strongly worded statement issued jointly by Russia's Foreign and Defense
Ministries declares: "either the British authorities are unable to protect from a terrorist
attack on their territory or staged the attack themselves... Russia owes nothing and can bear
no responsibility for the actions or lack of actions on British soil."
The "attack" on the Skripals is described as a "gross folly" by Russia and as a hoax
by numerous writers and others like myself. The more the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals try
to smear Russia, the more their credibility diminishes. Combined with the Cambridge Analytica
revelations, the plan to demonize Russia has grossly failed as the real demons get
revealed.
Posted by: turk 151 | Mar 21, 2018 11:56:33 AM | 20
Thierry Meyssan's article blew me away:
"Bypassing the official diplomatic channels, Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri
Guerassimov contacted his US counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fear of
a false flag chemical attack in Ghouta. Dunford took this information vey seriously, and
alerted US Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, who referred the matter to President Donald
Trump. In view of the Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared
without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike
Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy."..
"We do not know the result of this internal enquiry, but President Trump acquired the
conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated. The Secretary of State
was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to
Washington.". .
"[Tillerson was replaced by Mike Pompeo, ex-Director of the CIA, who, the night before,
had confirmed the authenticity of the Russian information transmitted by General
Dunford."
Don Bacon @13 linked to a piece at UNZ Revue and the note by Andrey Lazarchuk at the
bottom of the article which is interesting.
According to that, Mirzayanov was Identified as a leak early on, and then used to transmit
false information. It is noticeable that Mirzayanov Used a letter plus three digits for the
designation code of the chemicals, whereas the scientist that actually worked on developing
new compounds uses a letter plus four digits for the designation codes.
The compounds Mirzayanov has in his book, A-232 and so forth, were most likely genuine
compounds that had been discarded by the soviet scientists, given a new designation code and
a name for the group and fed to Mirzayan.
The UK will never come clean on their disinformation campaign. They are petty and stupid to
think the UK is and can be kept somehow 'great'. They are actually the evidence of the
decline of the UK.
Further to my post @24. Have UK used some discarded soviet chemical compounds that has been
used in a cold war disinformation operation to poison the Skripols and the policeman?
If this is the case, Russia would have the old soviet records of the disinformation
operation ready to rock and roll. Maybe the Brits may have walked into a trap?
thanks b... great overview and especially the last half of your post where this kind of info
never gets discussed.. pointing out that the messengers are also profiting from what they are
saying is necessary and critical to be able to put the comments in perspective...
shills everyone of them - Colonel (rtd) Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, James Le Mesurier, and
especially boris the idiot johnson..
my favourite question in the comments today so far..
"I wonder how good security really is at Porton Down?
According to the interview with Prof. Rink, a "military grade formulation" does not follow
from the public data disclosed by Vadim Miranzayanov, because beside the main compound it is
necessary to have "auxiliary ingredients", and Miranzayanov did not have access to the
complete formulations, he had a technical role in the development of "main components".
Therefore full chromatography of samples would disclose if the chemist working for the
perpetrator(s) had a knowledge of the full formulation or not. There is also an explanation
how word "novichok" was used, and indeed, it was used.
@23 Fecund Stench.. the folks over at
emptywheel are very slow to figure that out... i guess the russian/trump hatefest must
continue in at a number of blogs that used to be intelligent and insightful...
„In 2016 Iranian scientists, in cooperation with the OPCW, published production and
detection methods for such agents. It is likely that the various government labs secretly
re-developed and produced these chemicals for their own purposes even prior to the Iranian
publication."
THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE for this „Iranian Publication". (The visible source is
Craig Murray.)
It appears that MoA, too has fallen for this probable canard, which was filtered thru
and spread (unwittingly) by Craig Murray to make it appear „credible".
Ryan De Vooght-Johnson the stated „author" of this article is not a
research-scientist but (was) the „commissioning editor" for a magazine called
„Bioanalysis", published (among many others) by a company called Future Science Ltd.
based in the north of London. (Part of the „Future Science Group")
BIOANALYSIS specialises in „Biomedicine" and „Drug R&D" (including
analytical research about Doping) not exactly „nerve agents". (They do know about
mass spectrometry, though)
Ryan De Vooght-Johnson apparently no longer works for the FSG, since a search for his
name brought only results in the archives from 2013. As a „comissioning editor" he
selected the articles which also included „sponsored" articles. So was he paid to
publish this?
There is something very fishy about this article (what Iranian source?) and every time I
open the website it starts to flash continually (is this just happening to me?) so it is
impossible to read the whole thing. I managed to make a screenshot (from the top half) and
zoomed in. (To me at least) this looks like a cut and paste job there are some strange dots
above the headline)
I asked Press TV to comment (could they deny of verify the claim?) but received no
answer so far.
Moreover THERE IS NO MENTION of this alleged „Iranian" breakthrough on the OPCW
website and Murray's claim (expressed in the headline „Iranian chemists identify
chemical warfare agents" clashes with this statement published by RT on March 16:
There
is no record of the Novichok group of nerve agents having been declared by a state party to
the Chemical Weapons Convention," the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) said in a press release on Friday.
The funny thing is, there is also no record of this „press-release" on the OPCW
website. In fact, the search-term „Novichok" yields no result at all. This is all
very strange, to say the least.
Seen in a geopolitical context, this „revelation" might have been planted with
Craig Murray (who spread it to refute the claim that „Novichoks" must be
„Russian") in order to smear Iran – by insinuating they are developing
„chemical weapons" in violation of the CWC (now that JPCOA is being discarded by
Trump, they need new political amunition ).
I have reached the conclusion that all this „novichok"-saga is a Red Herring. We
ought so concentrate more on the WHY, not he HOW (as with „9/11").
A SHOCKING TALE OF THREE CITIES (Washington, Salisbury, Damascus)
In Salisbury, England two people are found „slumped", allegedly „poisoned"
with an NA on a park-bench. HMG issues wild accusations against Russia. Days later the US
Secretary of State is being fired. Meanwhile the SAA and their Russian allies are gaining
more and more control over „rebel-held" Ghouta. Three different stories ? Not
really.
Here is the article which connects the dots perfectly: (and it is much more important
than the „Cambridge Analytics" stuff )
Cassandra, your post is nearly unreadable the way it is, but I also looked into Ryan De
Vooght-Johnson.
I found his bio. Lives in UK and writes for science journals.
TomGard came up with a separate document in one of the earlier novichok threads and it
does look like Iran has worked with OPCW on these chemicals and has published its
research.
The information is correct. Published in 'Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry'. It's
not been taken down (yet). Doing so now would be futile, anyways. Here's the link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rcm.7757
@37 cassandra.. i have read the article, but nowhere in the article do i see any refutation
of
the article that both b and criag murray linked to on iranian chemists identify russia
chemical agents... what am i missing? thanks...
We've lost something in the political, intellectual, and legal culture. It used to be that
if a person posits an extraordinary claim, then he is under the obligation to provide evidence
for the claim. That's the way the Western world usually works. Keep that in mind as you read
the following headline:
"Theresa May has given Vladimir Putin's administration until midnight on Tuesday to explain
how a former spy was poisoned in Salisbury, otherwise she will conclude it was an 'unlawful use
of force' by the Russian state against the UK." [1]
This is similar to the age-old tactic, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If you say
yes, then you have just admitted that you are guilty of committing a crime. If you say no, then
you are still guilty of committing a crime.
Theresa May's promiscuous accusation will never work in a sane world where the rules of
evidence are respected and applied consistently. You simply cannot accuse someone of a crime
and expect the same person to produce evidence that he is not guilty. It just doesn't add up.
In fact, one needn't be a politician or even a lawyer to realize that May's position simply is
crazy.
That seems to be one reason why Russia isn't taking May seriously at all. What May and New
World Order agents need to do is simply this: produce rigorous evidence which shows that Russia
is culpable. But there is something else here.
When May was asked in 2016 if she was prepared to authorize a nuclear strike on thousands
upon thousands of men, women and children in the Middle East, she responded by saying:
In a rational world, this is inexplicable. Let's just do some thought experiment here. Let's
suppose that Russia is guilty. Could it be that Russia was simply following May's prevailing
vision? Could it be that Russia was actually universalizing May's ideology?
May is ready to use nuclear weapons on thousands of perceived enemies, but other countries
cannot do the same! How in the world did they elect these people as leaders of the so-called
free world? This is not even differential equations or mathematical physics. This is common
sense which applies to every human being on the planet.
What we are seeing here is that New World Order agents like May are desperate because Russia
has humiliated them in Syria. NWO agents are still perpetuating the chorus that Assad has to
go. But Assad, Russia and Iran are still exposing war mongers in the region. How long did it
take the United States to obliterate Iraq? Just a few months. Libya? Just a few months.
But Syria? Well, both Russia and Iran are saying enough is enough. May and other puppets of
the Zionist regime obviously do not like that. Therefore, they are summoning implausible
scenarios in order to keep the Zionist expedition in countries in the Middle East alive and
well. But Russia isn't taking those people seriously at all. [2]
[1] Anushka Asthana, Andrew Roth, Luke Harding and Ewen MacAskill, "Russian spy
poisoning: Theresa May issues ultimatum to Moscow," Guardian , March 13, 2018.
[2] "Judgment Day: Putin's midnight deadline has terminated, so what will Theresa May do
next?," Russia Today , May 14, 2018.
Britain has yet to identify the assassin who tried to murder the double agent Sergei Skripal
and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.
But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit.
"We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was (Russian President Vladimir Putin's)
decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K."
"Unforgivable," says Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov of the charge, which also defies "common
sense." On Sunday, Putin echoed Peskov: "It is just sheer nonsense, complete rubbish, to think
that anyone in Russia could do anything like that in the run-up to the presidential election
and the World Cup. It's simply unthinkable."
Putin repeated Russia's offer to assist in the investigation.
But Johnson is not backing down; he is doubling down.
"We gave the Russians every opportunity to come up with an alternative hypothesis and they
haven't," said Johnson. "We actually have evidence that Russia has not only been
investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination but has also
been creating and stockpiling Novichok," the poison used in Salisbury.
Why Russia is the prime suspect is understandable. Novichok was created by Russia's military
decades ago, and Skripal, a former Russian intel officer, betrayed Russian spies to MI6.
But what is missing here is the Kremlin's motive for the crime.
Skripal was convicted of betraying Russian spies in 2006. He spent four years in prison and
was exchanged in 2010 for Russian spies in the U.S. If Putin wanted Skripal dead as an example
to all potential traitors, why didn't he execute him while he was in Kremlin custody?
Why wait until eight years after Skripal had been sent to England? And how would this murder
on British soil advance any Russian interest?
Putin is no fool. A veteran intelligence agent, he knows that no rival intel agency such as
the CIA or MI6 would trade spies with Russia if the Kremlin were to go about killing them after
they have been traded.
"Cui bono?" runs the always relevant Ciceronian question. "Who benefits" from this criminal
atrocity?
Certainly, in this case, not Russia, not the Kremlin, not Putin.
All have taken a ceaseless beating in world opinion and Western media since the Skripals
were found comatose, near death, on that bench outside a mall in Salisbury.
Predictably, Britain's reaction has been rage, revulsion and retaliation. Twenty-three
Russian diplomats, intelligence agents in their London embassy, have been expelled. The Brits
have been treating Putin as a pariah and depicting Russia as outside the circle of civilized
nations.
Russia is "ripping up the international rulebook," roared Defense Secretary Gavin
Williamson. Asked how Moscow might respond to the expulsions, Williamson retorted: Russia
should "go away and shut up."
Putin sympathizers, including Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been silenced or
savaged as appeasers for resisting the rush to judgment.
The Americans naturally came down on the side of their oldest ally, with President Donald
Trump imposing new sanctions.
We are daily admonished that Putin tried to tip the 2016 election to Trump. But if so, why
would Putin order a public assassination that would almost compel Trump to postpone his efforts
at a rapprochement?
Who, then, are the beneficiaries of this atrocity?
Is it not the coalition -- principally in our own capital city -- that bears an endemic
hostility to Russia and envisions America's future role as a continuance of its Cold War role
of containing and corralling Russia until we can achieve regime change in Moscow?
What should Trump's posture be? Stand by our British ally but insist privately on a full
investigation and convincing proof before taking any irreversible action.
Was this act really ordered by Putin and the Kremlin, who have not only denied it but
condemned it?
Or was it the work of rogue agents who desired the consequences that they knew the murder of
Skripal would produce -- a deeper and more permanent split between Russia and the West?
Only a moron could not have known what the political ramifications of such an atrocity as
this would be on U.S.-British-Russian relations.
And before we act on Boris Johnson's verdict -- that Putin ordered it -- let us recall:
The Spanish, we learned, did not actually blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor in
1898, which ignited the Spanish-American War.
The story of North Vietnamese gunboats attacking U.S. destroyers, which led to the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution and 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam, proved not to be entirely
accurate.
We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later
discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have.
Some 4,500 U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded paid for that rush to judgment. And
some of those clamoring for war then are visible in the vanguard of those clamoring for
confronting Russia.
Before we set off on Cold War II with Russia -- leading perhaps to the shooting war we
avoided in Cold War I -- let's try to get this one right.
"... . Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian super-weapon". ..."
"... What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu fish. ..."
"... Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of disinformation. ..."
This brief note by Andrey Lazarchuk has been published in the social networks. It is
interesting, and it agrees with revealed facts. Whether it is true or not – remains to
be seen. Here is his text in verbatim translation:
Do not ask for the source of the information, I will not give it up. Everything written
below is very different from what you can find on the web.
1. Already in the early 1980s, the Soviet Army ceased to treat CW (Chemical Weapons) as a
weapon that could be used in real war conditions: approximately in 1983-84 it was decided to
cease CW supplies to the army, reduce operational reserves and take out CW from the troops to
long-term storage warehouses and landfills for destruction. At the same time and until 1996,
there were no new CW products supplied to the army, neither new instructions for use and
protection.
2. Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical
developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First
Department).
3. In the second half of the 1980s, the KGB carried out a large-scale operation to
dis-inform the enemy, which also had the side-line task of identifying information leakage
channels. Twenty "fake" but very detailed projects were developed for "a new chemical
super-weapon that is not detected by existing NATO detectors and from which there is no
protection" (NOVA with indices, "Novichok" with indices, ASD and others). The Novichok passed
through the hands of Mirzoyanov.
4. The factory-laboratory in Kantyubek in the late 70′s was re-profiled from the
creation and testing of CW and BW for the production and testing of herbicides and defoliants
– mainly for the needs of the cotton industry.
5. Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was
removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he
revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the
Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian
super-weapon".
6. NATO had spent more than $ 10 billion on defence against this fake weapon.
7. What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor
the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More
or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu
fish.
Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation
carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of
disinformation.
"... It parallels 9/11, whereby contradictory evidence has been 'pushed.' The targets seem to be two, 1) the proles [as usual] and 2) Putin/Russia [danger, nukes!] ..."
"... But (1) makes no sense; as no Iraqi WMDs showed, a) the CCC [= covert criminal cabal] went ahead anyway, telling the proles: "Bite your bum!" The proles are powerless passengers, and voting is futile anyway since x = y. ..."
"... And (2) should have *no* effect at all; Putin was always going to be and has now been re-elected, and from Crimea, E.Ukr and especially Syria, Russia appears to have the rogue-regimes' measure. A proof = refugees now streaming out of Ghouta into [comparative] freedom, say. ..."
"... Let us posit some 3rd party, whose name some dare not mention? "Do what we say and nobody gets hurt" seems to have lost its oomph and 'smartest crims on the planet' looks definitely jaded. Confounded by inconvenient reality, perhaps? ..."
So if the Mossad did it on British soil, you can bet your last penny that both the CIA
and MI5/6 not only knew before hand but participated in the details
It's a publicity stunt; recall Bernays' "torches of freedom." It parallels 9/11,
whereby contradictory evidence has been 'pushed.' The targets seem to be two, 1) the proles
[as usual] and 2) Putin/Russia [danger, nukes!]
But (1) makes no sense; as no Iraqi WMDs showed, a) the CCC [= covert criminal cabal]
went ahead anyway, telling the proles: "Bite your bum!" The proles are powerless passengers,
and voting is futile anyway since x = y.
And (2) should have *no* effect at all; Putin was always going to be and has now been
re-elected, and from Crimea, E.Ukr and especially Syria, Russia appears to have the
rogue-regimes' measure. A proof = refugees now streaming out of Ghouta into [comparative]
freedom, say.
So, given the apparently threadbare psyop, a) with what purpose, and b) cui bono?
Especially (b), UK could end up with a very bad case of 'egg all over its face.'
Let us posit some 3rd party, whose name some dare not mention? "Do what we say and
nobody gets hurt" seems to have lost its oomph and 'smartest crims on the planet' looks
definitely jaded. Confounded by inconvenient reality, perhaps?
When it comes to choosing between a conspiracy and a stuff-up? Well, here we seem to have
both. In spades. *OR* : We haven't seen the 'surprise' ending yet?
There is absolutely nothing totally duplicitous, nothing evil, that British secret service
(meaning both MI5 and MI6) will not do, and in fact has not done.
The British Empire operated as something at least akin to utterly amoral. It saw itself as
beyond good and evil in any historic sense. As it was born of rebellion against Christendom,
that not only makes sense but also was all but inevitable.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy will produce culture that
is pro-Jewish specifically and more generally will reflect ways of doing and being and
thinking, ways of defining morality, that are in step with the Talmud. And that may be summed
as: amoral will to power based on faith that one's group is the superior race/nation that
should rule the world by any means necessary.
The British Empire did not die in any sense. The British Empire's direct rule simply moved
to DC and NYC. America is now the chief operating officer of the British Empire. WASP culture
and its rather unique form of amoral imperialism still rules the world and intends to crush
every opposition into dust – for the uplifting of poor brown and black brothers and
sisters, and for freedom for all, and other selfless good works.
Who poisoned the hapless idiot Russian double agent and his daughter? In general, some
part of the British secret service, which includes the CIA and the Mossad and the Saudi
General Intelligence Presidency.
"... May accusations implies that the British authorities have both a control sample (to determine if the quantities found would
be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example. How did they
got those ? ..."
"... Also from scant information available suggests that the most plausible hypothesis is a false flag operation which probably
proceeded in two steps (with the first step not necessary accomplished by those who run the second step; it can be two different groups).
..."
"... There is certainly a reasonable list of suspects, most more credible than the Russian state. Perhaps one can also separate
out the crime in to two parts, those who committed it, and those who have sought to exploit it. ..."
May and Johnson are probably examples of the level of the degeneration of British elite.
May accusations implies that the British authorities have both a control sample (to determine if the quantities found would
be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example. How did
they got those ?
Also from scant information available suggests that the most plausible hypothesis is a false flag operation which probably
proceeded in two steps (with the first step not necessary accomplished by those who run the second step; it can be two different
groups).
First some poison like Fentanyl was mixed into food or drinks or taken by Skripals themselves either as masked as some other
medication, or as a part of narcoaddict fix. Fentanyl is known for previous use in assassinations. It killed more than 21K people
in the USA in 2016
On the second stage, which occurred when Skripals were already hospitalized nerve agent was planted in several places, including
home and the police investigator became the first victim. Poisoning of "opponent of the regime" provides ideal conditions for
a false flag operation as the cloud of secrecy can be used to subvert the investigation and pursue the agenda with the complete
impunity. The government can essentially decree the "truth" in such cases. It also provides tremendous propaganda effect.
And British are not shy from experimenting on humans with poison gases either. It took 50 years for Porton Down chemical research
centre to come clean on poisoning a British soldier with Sarin telling him it was a flu test. Poor fella.
The first step can also be plot by some group connected with William Browder of Magnitsky death fame (
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25190975 ), Berezovsky
associates or some other "Russian mafia in London" groups. The fact that Skripal has such an expensive car suggests that he was
participating in some business dealings, probably as a part of some London-based exiles group. UK government is not know for extreme
generosity toward such people as Skripal.
The question arise why the UK government went this path. It well might be the USA pressure (like in case of Iraq invasion)
or internal considerations that such step will be beneficial to the May government survival. Or both.
My impression is that his is just a first (and somewhat clumsy executed) step in multi step gambit in which Scripals were just
sacrificial lamps. Pawns is a bigger game.
The next steps might be related to Would Cup and/or confiscation of assets of Russian oligarchs in London to put pressure on
Putin and possibly initiate with their hands a "regime change" in Russia.
Available timelines suggest that initial poisoning took around half an hour to incapacitate them, which is not typical for
a nerve gas.
CCTV footage shows them walking around 3:47 p.m. 16:15 GMT: emergency services received the first report of an incident ??:??
Police found the pair on a bench outside Zizzi in an "extremely serious condition"
If we assume that they were poisoned at Zizzi with fentanyl or something similar they survived for more then an hour, which
is not atypical in cases of narcotics overdose. Moreover Scripal lost emotional control at the restaurant which also happens when
a narcoaddict wants to take his fix and can't. That does not explain why the daughter was also affected, though.
Only this sequence of events can explain what the doctor who treated the daughter for 30 min and first responders suffered
no consequences.
The "Doctor" who, so the BBC reported, "asked not to be named" is surely a prime suspect. Not only was she the only person
known to be in the vicinity of the Skripals closest to the time they were poisoned, but she was aksi the person best able to have
planted nerve agent contamination where the Skripals were allegedly incapacitated.
As for the Skripals, who have disappeared from view and to whom the daughter has been denied contact by a Russian embassy representative,
perhaps they are already settling into new identities, their old selves eventually to be declared dead, despite heroic efforts
by, um, well we're not sure who, since no one subjected to a nerve agent was admitted as a patient by the local hospital.
There is certainly a reasonable list of suspects, most more credible than the Russian state. Perhaps one can also separate
out the crime in to two parts, those who committed it, and those who have sought to exploit it.
The "hate for Trump" by the establishment, is a total canard.
Trump is OWNED by the same Zionist mafia filth that own May, which is the same Zionists
that own the media in America and Britain.
As when Obama (also a Zionist puppet, mainly because Obama was a coward, unlike Trump
who has been groomed to be a zionist puppet) was in office, he was provided a FAKE conflict
with the "birthers". American politics are all about subterfuge, distraction, divide and
conquer.
The so called "attacks on Trump", are simply meant to drive the right to support him,
precisely the way the "attacks on Obama", drove the left to ignore Obama's neocon ways, and
defend him.
England is run by the Zionists, Washington is run by the Zionists, Wall Street IS
Zionist, as it the media and the entire entertainment industry, as well as the "social
Media", Trump is from Jew York City, owes his fortune to Jewish Bankers, and yet, so many
buy this ridiculous narrative of Trump, the anti establishment warrior, a meme that is
ludicrous.
So, instead of discussing Trump's lies about border enforcement, his lies about leaving
Syria, his lies about rebuilding infrastructure, he are distracted with lies about "sexual
harassment", and "Russia Gate"...and sadly many buy right into it.
" [...] The so called "attacks on Trump", are simply meant to drive the right to support
him, precisely the way the "attacks on Obama", drove the left to ignore Obama's neocon ways,
and defend him. [...]"
Exactly. Orange Clown's whole campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" scam from the
beginning, IMO.
I believe that Orange Clown is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed and
"waiting in the wings" for his masters' beck and call. And the call came at the end of the
Obama administration, with the agenda not only stalled but exposed like never before; with
Russia and China rising; and the U.S. falling behind. As I see it, the political ascendancy
of Orange Clown is a sign of his masters' increasing desperation.
I believe that Orange Clown's mission – as puppet president of last resort –
is to present (apparently by way of a series of reckless provocations) ultimatum to Russia
and China: "either cede your sovereignty to the empire and start taking orders, or it's war"
or something like that.
And I believe the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was intended to show the
world (in case there's any doubt) just who it is that's calling the shots here and running
everything in the U.S. (IOW they're taking off the mask as they demand surrender).
Some people woke up when Orange Clown attacked the Syrian airbase with cruise missiles,
but unfortunately it seems there are still many people who absolutely refuse to accept that
Orange Clown is a fraud, no matter what he does (or fails to do). Paul Craig Roberts is an
example of someone who should know better, but who continues to imply that Orange Clown is
just a helpless "babe in the woods"; a nice guy in a bad situation.
"... Washington's gratuitous raising of tensions with Russia that we have been witnessing for many years is so reckless and irresponsible that we need some relief from the depression of it all. Perhaps I am grasping at straws, but here are some hopeful developments. ..."
"... As important as Amb. Murray's factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his daughter. We don't even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent. ..."
"... What is the real reason for the British government's completely obvious blatant lies? What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an alleged event? ..."
"... How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared government agendas? The Skripal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media. ..."
"... This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. ..."
"... Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Originally
from: Novichok and Russia-Gate: Finally, Some Good News By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global
Research, March 20, 2018
Washington's gratuitous raising of tensions with Russia that we have been witnessing for
many years is so reckless and irresponsible that we need some relief from the depression of it
all. Perhaps I am grasping at straws, but here are some hopeful developments.
An establishment journalist, Michael Goodwin, the chief political columnist for the New
York Post and a former bureau chief for the New York Times, has blamed the New York Times and
Washington Post for the destruction of journalistic
standards in the United States.
-- James Kallstrom , an Assistant Director of the FBI, told Fox News that high-ranking
people throughout the US government coordinated a plot to help Hillary Clinton avoid
indictment:
"I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that
high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot
to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted.
"I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole [Russiagate] strategy --
they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the
intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven't heard anything about that yet.
Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens."
Senator Rand Paul vows to block the appointments of Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel as
Secretary of State and Director of the CIA. Read
and rejoice .
It is possible that the firing of Deputy FBI Director McCabe has opened for public
exposure the plot hatched by the CIA, FBI, Departments of Justice and State, Hillary Clinton,
and the Democratic National Committee to cover up Hillary's felonies and to falsely accuse
Donald Trump of conspiring with Russian President Putin to steal the US presidential
election. If Trump doesn't chicken out, it is possible to put Brennan, Comey, McCabe,
Hillary, and many others in prison for their egregious and bold assaut on American democracy
and the rule of law. These prosecutions would break the power, of much of it, of the secret
national security state, and, thereby, make it possible for Trump to return to his campaign
promise to normalize relations with Russia. If these relations are not normalized, war will
be the result. But at least now there is a chance.
British Ambassador Craig Murray has successfully exposed
the deception practiced by the utter corrupt British government in its false allegation
that the Russian government used a nerve agent to poison two people on a bench in England.
The British government's scientists have far more integrity than the British government and
flatly refused to sanction the government's claim about the nerve agent. This forced the
corrupt May government to use the wording "of a type developed by Russia."
Amb. Murray goes on to establish that there is no evidence that Russia ever developed such a
nerve agent and that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no
such agent when it oversaw and verified Russia's destruction of Russian chemical weapons. Amb.
Murray reports that the only known synthesis of what is being called "Novichok" occurred in
2016 by Iran in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in
order to test whether formulas published in a book many years ago could actually produce such
an agent.
Amb. Murray exposes the utterly corrupt presstitutes that comprise the Western media for
never once asking the corrupt UK government about its hedge words, "of a type developed by
Russia" and for their efforts to silence him with libel and slander.
As important as Amb. Murray's factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that
no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his
daughter. We don't even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government
has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent.
What is the real reason for the British government's completely obvious blatant lies?
What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an
alleged event?
How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a
collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared
government agendas? The Skripal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western
media.
*
This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political
Economy.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"The freaky British Government headed by a haggard Prime Minister is accusing President Putin personally of poisoning a former
Russian spy and his daughter by nerve gas. This move on the part of British Intelligence is intended to portray President Putin as a
criminal before the Presidential elections and to make a hodgepodge of allegations to divide the pro-Russian allies inside the
European Union and implant hatred for Putin within the British community."
Notable quotes:
"... I had not known Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was still on the planet. He was one of the bright lights of the sad War of Terror when he blew the story of the terror regime running Uzbekistan. ..."
"... It used the US war as a smokescreen to round up all of their political opponents as "terrorists", to torture and kill, and then fed phony confessions to US Intel that nobody seemed very interested in knowing they were bogus. Murray at the time said 10,000 were murdered. ..."
"... military grade ..."
"... no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter. ..."
"... We did not need Murray's revelations, however valuable, to come to this conclusion ourselves. The day before Mrs May made her statement to the House of Commons, Neil Basu, the newly appointed assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for counter-terrorism, who is in charge of the Skripal enquiry, told the press, in a formal statement, that the investigation was highly complex and that it would take a long time, probably "weeks." ..."
"... This enquiry, which broke the law under which it was conducted because Section 2 of the Enquiries Act of 2005 forbids such enquiries from ruling on criminal or civil liability, was in turn as convincing as the similar 2004 Hutton inquiry into the death of the scientist David Kelly. The Hutton report was widely ridiculed as an establishment stitch-up, which it was. ..."
"... The author of the Litvinenko report, a former judge acting on orders from Theresa May, concluded that President Putin ordered Litvinenko's assassination. Very similar arguments – that only the Russians could have done it because only they have these poisons – have now resurfaced about Skripal. ..."
"... Moreover, the same toxicologist, the late Professor John Henry of Imperial College, London, was the source of both the theory about Litvinenko's poisoning and also of the similar theory about Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian politician who stood for president in 2004 and who developed acne during the campaign. ..."
[
Editor's Note
:
RT is finally hitting its stride on the nerve agent poisoning, albeit it two
days late. We were afraid this might be day number three, but its afternoon postings had some meat on their
bones.
We are still mystified at VT how the Brits think anyone is going to believe their cock-and-bull story. On
the contrary, we think they are pushing a hoax, based on their publicly making claims they admit not having
evidence for.
They are not suffering from stupidity, but are over confident in their ability to bluff their way through
it.
I had not known Craig
Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was still on the planet. He was one of the bright lights
of the sad War of Terror when he blew the story of the terror regime running Uzbekistan.
It used the US war as a
smokescreen to round up all of their political opponents as "terrorists", to torture and kill, and then fed
phony confessions to US Intel that nobody seemed very interested in knowing they were bogus. Murray at the
time said 10,000 were murdered.
When Murray passed this gruesome information on to his diplomatic superiors, they were not interested.
This current case is another example, as I had warned after 9-11, that if you don't nail them, they just
come back at you later, having no fear of retribution from the public.
Litvinenko
killed himself while smuggling a few million dollars of Polonium
VT's Ian Greenhalgh
has a great story up, debunking the earlier Polonium poisoning of
Russian defector Litvinenko and the usual British coverup done there.
Traces of Polonium on the plane seats Litvinenko had flown on proved he had been transporting it,
obviously in a smuggling endeavor. Be sure to read Ian's piece.
As it was worth a few million dollars, VT can assure you the Russians don't have to spend that much to
knock somebody off, even for a defector. Forgive me, but I have to say that is overkill.
Our revenge for putting us all through the Russian fear porn hoax is to organize call campaigns to
British embassies everywhere, and let them know how ghastly we feel their behavior has been here. The phone
number in DC is 202-588-6500.
The police commissioner says it is a complicated case that will take weeks for a preliminary report, and
then British politicians are all pretending to have it figured out, but are keeping how they did that a
secret. Gosh, might someone be lying to us?
Jim W. Dean
]
Whitehall might regret the day for its playing us all for fools
– First published
March 15, 2018
–
There is no proof of Russia's guilt in the Skripal poisoning. The case recalls previous
allegations of poisoning which turned out to be either unproven or false, writes John Laughland.
Congratulations to Craig Murray for getting there first. The colorful former British ambassador to
Uzbekistan, turned anti-establishment dissident after he was sacked from the Foreign Office in 2004, has
published on his
blog
some
key texts by authoritative scientists which cast serious doubt on the British government's claims about
what happened to the former double agent, Sergei Skripal, and why.
Murray – and his sources – have
unearthed texts from 2016, 2013 and 1995 by, respectively, a scientist at Porton Down, the secret British
military chemical weapons installations which is 20 minutes from Salisbury where Skripal was found last
week; a scientist at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the statutory body created
by the 1997 Convention on Chemical Weapons but which London has ignored and bypassed in its spat with
Moscow; and by the Russian defector scientist, Vil Mirzayanov, who is the sole source for the claim that
the Soviet Union started to manufacture so-called novichok ("newbie") nerve agents in the 1980s,
allegedly now used to poison Skripal.
Two of these texts, for which Murray does not provide links, are available online
here
and
here
.
The first two show, long before anyone had heard of Sergei Skripal, that the existence of novichoks has
not been confirmed.
Mirzayanov's 1995 paper says that they could be manufactured
anywhere, for instance by any laboratory which can make fertilizer or pesticide, and that the factory
where they were allegedly developed by the Soviet Union is in Uzbekistan, a country which has not been
under Moscow's control since 1991 but where the Americans had a military base until 2005
.
In other words, even if it is true that Skripal was poisoned by this nerve agent, novichoks are not "
military
grade
". There is therefore no proof that they are manufactured in Russia and no grounds for
claiming, as Theresa May
did
on
March 14 in the House of Commons, that there is "
no alternative conclusion other than that the
Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.
"
On the contrary, there are plenty of alternative conclusions available at this stage. The fact that
these texts date from long before the Skripal affair only increases their credibility.
We did not need Murray's revelations, however valuable, to come
to this conclusion ourselves. The day before Mrs May made her statement to the House of Commons, Neil
Basu, the newly appointed assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for counter-terrorism, who is
in charge of the Skripal enquiry, told the press, in a formal statement, that the investigation was
highly complex and that it would take a long time, probably "weeks."
Mrs. May's statement and that of Commissioner Basu cannot both be true: if the police investigation is
still ongoing, there are no grounds even for making allegations, let alone for saying that guilt has been
proved.
Mrs. May's proclaimed lack of doubt is hardly convincing, since it was she who, as home secretary,
ordered
the
Litvinenko enquiry to be opened, seven years after Alexander Litvinenko's death, and then later
instructed evidence given to it by the British intelligence services to be kept
secret
.
This enquiry, which broke the law under which it was conducted because Section 2 of the
Enquiries
Act
of 2005 forbids such enquiries from ruling on criminal or civil liability, was in turn as
convincing as the similar 2004 Hutton
inquiry
into
the death of the scientist David Kelly. The Hutton report was widely ridiculed as an establishment
stitch-up, which it was.
The author of the Litvinenko report, a former judge acting on orders from Theresa May, concluded
that President Putin ordered Litvinenko's assassination. Very similar arguments – that only the Russians
could have done it because only they have these poisons – have now resurfaced about Skripal.
Moreover, the same toxicologist, the late Professor John Henry of Imperial College, London, was
the source of both the theory about Litvinenko's poisoning and also of the similar theory about Viktor
Yushchenko, the Ukrainian politician who stood for president in 2004 and who developed acne during the
campaign.
The theory that Yuschenko had been poisoned by his "
pro-Russian
" rival,
Viktor Yanukovich, was widely accredited at the time, even though the clinic in Vienna, on whose
premises the original claim of poisoning had been announced, formally denied, in a statement on its
website, that it had authorized or approved the diagnosis.
In fact, as I learned by telephoning the medical director of the clinic which published the denial,
he had received death threats for questioning Yushchenko's story. In five years as president of
Ukraine, moreover, with the whole apparatus of the state at his disposal, Yushchenko was never able to
find anyone responsible for what happened to him and the affair has now been closed for years.
The whole thing, to put it bluntly, was a load of rubbish. There
are no known cases of fatal poisoning by dioxin in the history of medicine, and the Dutch toxicologist
who claimed to have found dioxin in Yushchenko's blood – as I also found out when I rang him too – was
in reality a food scientist who admitted to me that he had no way of knowing how it had got there.
He added that the dose was so small that it would hardly have killed a rat, let alone a human
being. Yet this ridiculous theory was widely believed to be true, including by professors of medicine,
and it served its purpose in getting Yushchenko elected.
So there is a history of such poisoning allegations going back a decade and a half. Such
accusations tap into some very deep psychology indeed: Russia plays in these allegations the role
attributed to Jews in the Middle Ages, who were regularly accused of poisoning wells or of bearing the
plague.
Each of our modern witch-hunts feeds off the previous one and the theory snowballs over time. The
unproved allegations of yesterday become the elements of proof for today. Those of us who cried foul
back in 2004 may well be proved right about Sergei Skripal – but by that time everyone will have
forgotten him and moved on to something else.
John Laughland for RT.
John Laughland is a historian and political scientist who has been Director of Studies at the
Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris since 2008. He is the author of several books, the
most recent of which is 'A History of Political trials from Charles I to Charles Taylor'.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Probably Brits. Maybe Benyammerin? Certainly US thug state aware. Most likely the 3 Axis
of Evil members conspired. Fellow was expendable. Daughter murdered for shock value.
Judaized West not ethical not moral.
Any way this event only helped Pres Putin. And 1500 international observers certify legit.
US will need 1500 for NYC alone in 2020 to prevent Demos from stealing.
"... no specific schooling for his role as witch-finder -- he just came with a passionate belief in the righteousness of his own actions. ..."
"... Keeping our press free is the best way to counter Kremlin propaganda ..."
"... both literally and metaphorically ..."
"... Russian aggression ..."
"... Russian state propaganda is no joke & it shouldn't be on London Underground ..."
"... n simple terms: he doesn't like the idea of a 'state-sponsored ' message which is not coming from his state, so wants to use the power of the state to make absolutely sure no one hears anything his state doesn't like. See? ..."
"... withdrawing licence from Putin's propaganda arm Russia Today ..."
"... f all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind, ..."
Never mind that the presumption of innocence is a hallmark of a fair judicial system and
indeed a civilized country. The Sun says it was Putin who did it, and so does John Woodcock MP,
so that settles it. Trial by media and neocon propagandists has replaced due process.
Unlike in the 1970s, when Britain was truly a vibrant democracy, political debate is today
vigorously policed with dissident voices hounded by obnoxious 'Witch-finder Generals' who
clearly model themselves on the late Matthew Hopkins
, a man who traveled East Anglia on horseback hunting for heretics. It was said of Hopkins that
he had " no specific schooling for his role as witch-finder -- he just came with a
passionate belief in the righteousness of his own actions. " With such an attitude he'd
surely have a nice job working for the Rupert Murdoch media empire today.
Truly, what a state we're in. People -- believe it or not -- have been banned from
membership of political parties on the basis on tweets or Facebook postings they made years
ago. Employers are contacted too if the 'wrong' views are expressed on social media. Everyone
it seems must conform and only express 'politically correct' opinions which the 21st Century
witch-finders deem acceptable. That means no questioning of the official War Party narrative on
foreign policy -- and joining in with the current Establishment-induced wave of Russophobia. Or
else. Just look at the vile attacks made by 'Inside the Tent' state and corporate media
journalists on Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, for his daring to
challenge the official narrative on the Salisbury poisonings.
On Being a Dissenting Voice in 2018 - I just thought I might give you a little taste of
what it means to your personal life to express dissent from the government line in the UK in
2018. Let me start with this combined effort from the UK's most popular https://t.co/UN886iUjEG
There have been some chilling statements made in the past week, but arguably none more so
than those made in a Sunday newspaper
column by Ruth Davidson, the 'progressive' leader of the Scottish Conservatives. In an
article entitled in its hard copy version " Keeping our press free is the best way to
counter Kremlin propaganda ," Davidson claimed that Britain was being poisoned " both
literally and metaphorically " by " Russian aggression ." In order to protect
Britain's vigorous free media, we must "pull the plug" on RT.
I live less than 15 miles from where George Orwell is buried and I could swear I heard him
turning in his grave on Sunday night. Repeat after me: To keep the press free we must close
television stations To keep the press free we must close television stations. War is Peace.
Slavery is Freedom!
'The clamour'?! It's only coming from you - The Times- who have run an obsessive &
very nasty campaign to try and get @RT_com taken off air and second-rate
NeoCon politicians desperate to curry favour with your owner Rupert Murdoch. https://t.co/TXmTla4lRW
Davidson is one of a small but vociferous group of witch-finders who want RT taken off air.
Lord Adonis is another. The unelected peer, whose only elected office was as a Lib Dem/SDP
councilor in leafy North Oxford in the 1990s, was incensed when he saw RT's witty adverts on
the London Underground last year. " Russian state propaganda is no joke & it shouldn't
be on London Underground ," the baron tweeted . He then said he
would be taking the matter up with 'the Commissioner.' As Simon Rite noted for RT: "I n
simple terms: he doesn't like the idea of a 'state-sponsored ' message which is not coming from
his state, so wants to use the power of the state to make absolutely sure no one hears anything
his state doesn't like. See? "
On March 15, the pompous, censorious peer tweeted that he had written to UK media regulator
Ofcom, requesting that they consider " withdrawing licence from Putin's propaganda arm
Russia Today " -- which according to him is "not a news channel."
Perhaps we should move to a system whereby Lord Adonis designates what is or is not a "
news channel "? We can't leave it to ordinary viewers in Sunderland or Southampton to
decide, can we?
Rights activist Peter Tatchell in hot water over calls for Russian officials' children to
be expelled from UK schools -- https://t.co/YCGcIMnwWh
Then there are the recent comments of Peter Tatchell. The 'rights activist' is another
'liberal' who is currently advocating some pretty illiberal measures. On Sunday, on Twitter, he
called for the 'seizure' of the UK assets of Putin-linked officials and their families and for
their children to be expelled from British schools. Got that? Children expelled from school not
because they are unruly or have been taking drugs, but because of who their mums and dads are.
The parallels with Nazi Germany circa 1935 spring readily to mind.
The sad truth is that hatred of Russia and Russians has not only become an acceptable form
of racism in the 'politically correct' Britain of 2018, it's almost de rigueur for anyone who
wants to progress in politics and the media. What an indictment that is of the present system.
The more we talk of 'tolerance,' the less 'tolerant' our public life has become.
The phenomenon of liberal totalitarianism -- and I don't think it's hyperbolic to call it
that -- needs to be openly discussed, before it's too late. It's already too late for some.
Entire countries such as Libya -- which not so long ago enjoyed the highest standard of living
in the whole of Africa -- have been destroyed in order to 'save' their people from a leader the
'liberals' deem is beyond the pale. Whether the people want to be saved is neither here nor
there. The Western 'liberal' always knows best. He's superior to everyone else. He has the
right to decide who should lead countries thousands of miles away, which elections are 'free
and fair' and which ones are fixed. Liberalism used to be an ideology which protected the
individual and his rights. Now that it has merged with neo-conservatism, it oppresses the
individual and reduces our rights. It seeks to ban, to bomb, to destroy. And all done in the
name of 'moderation' and 'fighting extremism.'
Old-style liberalism took its cue from John Stuart Mill, the author of 'On Liberty,' who
warned of the dangers of suppressing opinions we don't like. "I f all mankind minus one,
were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more
justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in
silencing mankind, " Mill famously wrote.
New-style liberalism by contrast takes its cue from neocon ideologues and obsessive Cold War
warriors who want to clamp down on dissident voices.
An important turning point in the descent of liberalism into totalitarianism was the
'humanitarian' bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and in particular the targeting by NATO of Serbian
TV. Sixteen workers were killed in a missile strike in the early hours of April 23, which also
severely damaged a nearby Russian Orthodox Church. It was hailed by the truly demonic US envoy
Richard Holbrooke
as a " positive development. "
NATO justified the attack on the grounds that RTS was broadcasting anti-NATO 'propaganda.'
British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that bombing television
stations was " entirely justified ."
It's worth remembering that even the Luftwaffe, at the height of the Blitz, didn't bomb the
BBC having demanded that it hand the microphone to Joseph Goebbels.
The way we can strike back against this new liberal totalitarianism is to refuse to be cowed
by it. We must not be afraid to express views which we genuinely hold, even if it does mean
being targeted by witch-finders or NATO 'democracy bombs.' The more we speak our minds, the
more it will encourage others to speak out too. Anti-free speech bullies who are destroying the
Enlightenment values they claim to support, can only succeed if they '
gaslight ' us into submission and people decide to bite their tongues. That way -- the
cowardly way -- leads to a thousand deaths, as Shakespeare put it; the valiant by contrast,
taste death only once.
Question More, as the RT the motto says. And don't let those who want us to question less
get away with it.
"... Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First Department). ..."
"... Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian super-weapon". ..."
"... What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu fish ..."
"... Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of disinformation. ..."
The Salisbury poisoning played an important role in the Russian elections. Practically all
Russian publications expressed indignation and didn't propose any explanation. This brief note
by Andrey Lazarchuk has been published in the social networks. It is interesting, and it agrees
with revealed facts. Whether it is true or not – remains to be seen. Here is his text in
verbatim translation:
Do not ask for the source of the information, I will not give it up. Everything written
below is very different from what you can find on the web.
1. Already in the early 1980s, the Soviet Army ceased to treat CW (Chemical Weapons) as a
weapon that could be used in real war conditions: approximately in 1983-84 it was decided to
cease CW supplies to the army, reduce operational reserves and take out CW from the troops to
long-term storage warehouses and landfills for destruction. At the same time and until 1996,
there were no new CW products supplied to the army, neither new instructions for use and
protection.
2. Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical
developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First
Department).
3. In the second half of the 1980s, the KGB carried out a large-scale operation to
dis-inform the enemy, which also had the side-line task of identifying information leakage
channels. Twenty "fake" but very detailed projects were developed for "a new chemical
super-weapon that is not detected by existing NATO detectors and from which there is no
protection" (NOVA with indices, "Novichok" with indices, ASD and others). The Novichok passed
through the hands of Mirzoyanov.
4. The factory-laboratory in Kantyubek in the late 70′s was re-profiled from the
creation and testing of CW and BW for the production and testing of herbicides and defoliants
– mainly for the needs of the cotton industry.
5. Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was
removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he
revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the
Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian
super-weapon".
6. NATO had spent more than $ 10 billion on defence against this fake weapon.
7. What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned,
nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture.
More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of
fugu fish .
Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation
carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of
disinformation.
Of course, like most articles about Putin, no evidence is provided.
I'm sick of fake news. I'm sick of the constant barrage of claims with no evidence. I
don't care who makes them. If you want people to pay any attention, provide evidence.
Otherwise, I might as well waste my time watching CNN.
"... Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved. ..."
"... Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade. ..."
"... Car is lifted by straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I doing? Got a better tale? ..."
"... Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why would anyone take you seriously? ..."
"... People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what it has meant historically. ..."
"Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", TIMES Mar
14)' may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in
Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several
people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None
has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have
shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent
involved."
Stephen Davies. Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.
Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how
she found Ms Skripal..She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying "there was no
sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripals face or body."
The woman, who asked not to be named, told the NNC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.
she said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, hut added that
she "feels fine".
Some nerve agent.
We read that Vladimir Putin's passport was found three days later at the scene.
One wonders how the Skripals are right now. Have they recovered completely, or partially? Are
they still deathly ill? Has one or both of them died?
In any case, why have there been no public announcements of these important facts? It is
useless to cite privacy, when the government hastened to trumpet the case – and its own
dubious conclusions – as publicly as possible.
Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been
to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of
evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong
impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved.
Incidentally, I wonder where the Skripals are and why. Apparently the Russian government
applied for consular access to Yulia (who is a Russian citizen) but this was bluntly refused
– against all norms of international law and civilized behaviour.
Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person
trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a
morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go
sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says
probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade.
How does the doctor know this: He is just down the street from the British Nerve Agent
Factory and has been trained to recognize and treat real exposures to potent nerve agents. A
policeman ends up in same hospital as Skripal because he sees car parked overtime or
illegally, opens door to check for ownership gets zapped by toxic agent. Car is lifted by
straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory
is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I
doing? Got a better tale?
Good, understanding that you are a joke is the first step on the road to possible
recovery.
Try for once to imagine a reverse scenario: an Englishman dies under suspicious
circumstances in a provincial town in Russia. (Or 3-4 of them over 15-20 years.) He was
considered a 'traitor' by UK for whatever reason. Immediately Russia declares that it was an
' unacceptable attack on Russia's sovereignty, that Britain did it, and that it is 'highly
likely' that Teresa May ordered it herself' . Russian government also says that they will
not disclose any details, show no evidence and will not even allow basis diplomatic protocol
for UK embassy. Why? For reasons of ' state security '. Wouldn't any rational outsider
consider that a joke?
Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are
special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You
have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia
based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why
would anyone take you seriously?
People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or
that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you
are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what
it has meant historically.
"... Not to mention that we are currently on version #5 (poisoned in the car, where apparently a British cop and more than 30 other people rode with him, if we are to believe previous statements). Only a hopeless moron can stage a provocation without inventing a coherent set of plausible lies beforehand. He did it, right in the middle of Britain in Salisbury, next to the British chemical weapons facility. Credo quia absurdum. ..."
"... Actually, having no definite story, and constantly updating the narrative with ridiculous red herrings, is probably the best way to go with a fake terror attack. With a different herring to pursue each day, the truth seeking citizen soon becomes exhausted and relapses back into the normal pattern of going to work and feeding a family, but with a reinforced sense of their own lack of power to either control, or even understand the world in which they live. ..."
"... This is the end time of democracy. We are now entering an age of psycho-totalitarianism. People do what the elite require because their brainwashed friends, neighbors, and children otherwise turn against them. They are demonized and humiliated as racists, anti-Semites, dog whistlers and all the rest of the bullshit lexicon of political correctness not for their actions but merely for their thoughts. ..."
Anon from TN
Yes, this is the British version of Russiagate, no doubt: no evidence, numerous versions
that contradict each other, lots of hot air and finger pointing. At the moment we do not
know what Skripal was poisoned with or by whom, we can't even be sure that anyone was
poisoned with anything. All we have is hot air, just like with Iraq WMD. From the same very
"reliable" sources: British intelligence services and British PM. Neither ever lies, just
ask Tony Blair. Not to mention that we are currently on version #5 (poisoned in the
car, where apparently a British cop and more than 30 other people rode with him, if we are
to believe previous statements). Only a hopeless moron can stage a provocation without
inventing a coherent set of plausible lies beforehand. He did it, right in the middle of
Britain in Salisbury, next to the British chemical weapons facility. Credo quia
absurdum.
Actually, having no definite story, and constantly updating the narrative with
ridiculous red herrings, is probably the best way to go with a fake terror attack. With a
different herring to pursue each day, the truth seeking citizen soon becomes exhausted and
relapses back into the normal pattern of going to work and feeding a family, but with a
reinforced sense of their own lack of power to either control, or even understand the world
in which they live.
This is the end time of democracy. We are now entering an age of
psycho-totalitarianism. People do what the elite require because their brainwashed friends,
neighbors, and children otherwise turn against them. They are demonized and humiliated as
racists, anti-Semites, dog whistlers and all the rest of the bullshit lexicon of political
correctness not for their actions but merely for their thoughts.
"... Please do not insult Britain because it does not need any other party (Ukraine, Georgia) to organize a false-flag such as this. Any reasonable person would understand that such mad rush to judgment and frantic lying by the British regime are closely related to the organizers of the poisoning. They could be one and only. ..."
"... I predicted at the start of the Skripal affair that will end up the same as the MH17 case: "truth established" without any good facts or based on secret facts, we move on. ..."
"... If somehow truth does surface, as with Iraqi WMD, then exactly the same strategy will be used by the British regime as by the US regime before: faulty intelligence and misleading (Porton Down) scientists. ..."
"... How many Porton Down scientists will be suicided a few weeks before daughters wedding, if the truth of the Russian WMD comes out, just as David Kelly regarding Iraqi WMD? ..."
"... Britain had a stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May, who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative Party. ..."
"... Really don't understand why Giraldi classifies this as "wild". Has he completely missed the numerous 'false flags' by UK initiated and financed 'White Helmets'? Every time UK/US intend to incite public outrage some 'chemical' incident was faked in Syria. ..."
"... The hate of the UK establishment for Trump is only rivaled by its hate for Russia, so MI5/6 playing May (who only a few weeks before Salisbury out of the blue ratcheted up her anti Russia rhetoric) like a fiddle was provided with what she needed. However looks like given the number of exotic deaths concentrated in the UK some MI5/6 idiot now made the mistake of more than he can fake. ..."
"... Quite astonishingly, given the lack of news coverage – At a London airport in public view, Prince Bandar apparently 'committed suicide' over a week ago, on 12 March 2018, when the UK refused entry to Bandar video said to be of Bandar jumping to his death, on YouTube ..."
"... So we have one of the best-known celebrity Saudi Arabian princes – who had threatened Russia – suddenly dead in a shocking and dramatic public 'suicide' at a London airport – yet this is 'not news' according to our overlords, tho Bandar's death and funeral prayers etc seem leading news across Muslim outlets ..."
"... Obviously we have a Western Permitted News Committee telling all major Western media outlets what is 'news', for our own good ..."
"... British media intel 'sources' have proposed different employ of the poison, from a 'hit squad' followed Yulia from Moscow, to the poison was planted in her luggage at Moscow, to the poison was introduced to Skripal's car via the ventilation system. ..."
"... When the 'backstop' lies differ so widely, it points to likelihood the British haven't a clue as to what actually happened, but the default position is 'the Russians did it' ..."
Please do not insult Britain because it does not need any other party (Ukraine, Georgia)
to organize a false-flag such as this. Any reasonable person would understand that such mad
rush to judgment and frantic lying by the British regime are closely related to the
organizers of the poisoning. They could be one and only.
I predicted at the start of the Skripal affair that will end up the same as the MH17 case:
"truth established" without any good facts or based on secret facts, we move on.
If somehow truth does surface, as with Iraqi WMD, then exactly the same strategy will be
used by the British regime as by the US regime before: faulty intelligence and misleading
(Porton Down) scientists.
How many Porton Down scientists will be suicided a few weeks before daughters wedding, if
the truth of the Russian WMD comes out, just as David Kelly regarding Iraqi WMD?
"And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party."
Really don't understand why Giraldi classifies this as "wild". Has he completely missed
the numerous 'false flags' by UK initiated and financed 'White Helmets'? Every time UK/US
intend to incite public outrage some 'chemical' incident was faked in Syria.
Look 'Rusiagate' Trump dossier has UK tail waggles US dog all over it. That Russiagate has
been faltering increasingly over the last few months with recently the House Intelligence
Committee declaring there is none. So some new impetus was required. Steele is too closely
connected to MI5/6 to presume innocence on their behalf.
The hate of the UK establishment for Trump is only rivaled by its hate for Russia, so
MI5/6 playing May (who only a few weeks before Salisbury out of the blue ratcheted up her
anti Russia rhetoric) like a fiddle was provided with what she needed. However looks like
given the number of exotic deaths concentrated in the UK some MI5/6 idiot now made the
mistake of more than he can fake.
On the topic of Russia-related deaths in Britain -
Everyone knows Saudi Prince Bandar – 'Bandar Bush' thanks to his close public ties
with the George Bush family – Bandar who reportedly threatened Putin with
Saudi-sponsored terrorist attacks inside Russia Bandar has long been the perhaps best-known
Saudi prince in the world
Quite astonishingly, given the lack of news coverage – At a London airport in public
view, Prince Bandar apparently 'committed suicide' over a week ago, on 12 March 2018, when
the UK refused entry to Bandar video said to be of Bandar jumping to his death, on
YouTube
So we have one of the best-known celebrity Saudi Arabian princes – who had
threatened Russia – suddenly dead in a shocking and dramatic public 'suicide' at a
London airport – yet this is 'not news' according to our overlords, tho Bandar's death
and funeral prayers etc seem leading news across Muslim outlets
Obviously we have a Western Permitted News Committee telling all major Western media
outlets what is 'news', for our own good
British media intel 'sources' have proposed different employ of the poison, from a 'hit
squad' followed Yulia from Moscow, to the poison was planted in her luggage at Moscow, to the
poison was introduced to Skripal's car via the ventilation system.
When the 'backstop' lies differ so widely, it points to likelihood the British haven't
a clue as to what actually happened, but the default position is 'the Russians did
it'
"... After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador and demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It was a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway. ..."
"... That in turn suggests a false flag, with someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack on New York City could be coming. ..."
"... Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might assassinate someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in the United States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is considering the possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a government to help it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can be used to spark an international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the ticket. ..."
There are a number of problems with the accepted narrative as presented by May and the
media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a nerve agent as "usually odorless organophosphate
(such as sarin, tabun, or VX) that disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting
cholinesterase and especially acetylcholinesterase and is used as a chemical weapon in gaseous
or liquid form," while Wikipedia explains that it is "a class of organic chemicals that disrupt
the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs." A little more research online
reveals that most so-called nerve agents are chemically related. So when Theresa May says that
the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a reported
Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and 1980s, she
is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are, to a
certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that might
or might not have been used in Salisbury.
Beyond that, a military strength nerve agent is, by definition, a highly concentrated and
easily dispersed form of a chemical weapon. It is intended to kill or incapacitate hundreds or
even thousands of soldiers. If it truly had been used in Salisbury, even in a small dose, it
would have killed Skripal and his daughter as well as others nearby. First responders who
showed up without protective clothing, clearly seen in the initial videos and photos taken near
the site, would also be dead. After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador
and demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of
the alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It
was a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway.
May's language also conveys uncertainty. She used "it appears" and also said it was "highly
likely" that Moscow was behind the poisoning of Skripal but provided no actual evidence that
that was the case, presumably only assuming that it had to be Russia. And her government has
told the public that there is "little risk" remaining over the incident and that those who were
possibly exposed merely have to wash themselves and their clothes, hardly likely if it were a
military grade toxin, which gains it lethality from being persistent on and around a target.
She made clear her lack of corroboration for her claim by offering an "either-or" analysis:
either Russia's government did it or it had "lost control" of its nerve agent.
As noted above, May's argument is, to a certain extent, based on character assassination of
Russians – she even offered up the alleged "annexation" of Crimea as corroboration of her
view that Moscow is not inclined to play by the rules that others observe. It is a narrative
that is based on the presumption that "this is the sort of thing the Russian government headed
by Vladimir Putin does." The British media has responded enthusiastically, running stories
about numerous assassinations and poisonings that ought to be attributed to Russia, while
ignoring the fact that the world leaders in political assassinations are actually the United
States and Israel.
There are a number of other considerations that the May government has ignored in its rush
to expand the crisis. She mentioned that Russia might be somewhat exonerated if it has lost
control of its chemical weapons, but did not fully explain what that might mean. It could be
plausible to consider that states hostile to Russia like Ukraine and Georgia that were once
part of the Soviet Union could have had , and might
still retain, stocks of the Novichok nerve agent. That in turn suggests a false flag, with
someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone
were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons
capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the
characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it
was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably
be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on
Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon
its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed
agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent
action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The
redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident
to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack
on New York City could be coming.
And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party. Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might
assassinate someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in
the United States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is
considering the possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a
government to help it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can
be used to spark an international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the
ticket.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Here's an interesting related piece that was linked to in Craig Murray's comments page. It
deals with the quote by the UK government, in support of their accusation of Russia, of
Putin's words in 2010, when he said: "Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other
folks betrayed their friends, their brother in arms, whatever they got in exchange for it,
those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them." The context as stated by
the UK government was "when we think about who benefits" [from the attack on the Skripals],
and the clear intention was to try to create the impression that Putin had threatened to kill
traitors, which is of course exactly how this quote was subsequently misrepresented.
There is of course a familiar "track record", or "pattern of behaviour" here, when one
considers how Israel lobbies of various kinds intentionally misrepresented Iranian words
about the Zionist regime "vanishing from the pages of history" as a threat to attack
Israel.
The piece is long, and I've posted it below for reference because I do not know if the
website in question will necessarily be around for long. Hopefully the moderators will put it
under a [More] tag so it remains, but does not clog up the thread. There are embedded
reference links in the text at the source.
No, on the occasion in question Putin did not say that traitors would be killed. The
quote in your question comes from a March 5, 2018 broadcast of BBC Newsnight. It is a
concatenation of three soundbites from a three-minute statement in which Putin says that
Russia no longer kills traitors. The soundbites come from the last paragraph of his
statement in which Putin paints a melodramatic picture of traitors as broken men living out
their remaining days in abject misery leading to an early death.
The actual fate of enemies of the Russian state is beyond the scope of the question and
this answer. Instead we will discuss the beliefs on this subject which Putin was attempting
to instill. He was inviting the Russian people to picture traitors dying friendless and
alone Men Without a Country in apartments strewn with empty vodka bottles.
The translation in the BBC broadcast alters the tone of Putin's statement and broadens
the meaning of his words to the point that, when they are read in the style used by Western
comedians portraying Putin, they seem to convey veiled threats of violence.
The Story Spreads
The next day (March 6th) the composite soundbite from the BBC broadcast appeared at the
head of article on the website of The Sun, now shorn of all even the context provided in
the BBC broadcast. The article describes the statement as a "threat to 'choke traitors'",
thereby changing the BBC's poor translation into an unambiguously false one.
The day after that (March 7th) the Independent put up an article with its own version of
the BBC video. The article incorrectly identifies it as a video which "re-emerged online"
and describes Putin's words as "apparent death threats".
Also on March 7th the Telegraph described Putin's words unambiguously as a "death
threat". This despite the fact that in 2010 they had reported on the very same statement
and found exactly the opposite meaning in it. What is more, now Putin's words were not
simply spoken close to the time of Sergei Skripal's release, they are now actually about
him.
On March 7th on Good Morning Britain Piers Morgan asked Alexander Nekrassov (former
Kremlin adviser) what Putin had meant by "kick the bucket". They each considered the
other's interpretation of the phrase ridiculous. (Not surprising since Mr. Morgan was
interpreting the Putin's words in the BBC's poor translation while Mr. Nekrassov was
presumably interpreting Mr. Putin's actual words which, at least for this phrase, can be
heard in the BBC broadcast.) Neither one of them seemed to know the context of the
quote.
On March 12th the video was mentioned in an editorial in the New York Times. The
editorial links to the March 7th article in the Independent and quotes the translation from
the video. The editors seem to have obtained some information about the TV show during
which the statement was made, but this is a bit garbled too. In particular their
description of the question is incorrect and they make no mention of the overall import of
Putin's answer.
Earlier Western Press Coverage of Putin's Statement
Putin's statement attracted some press coverage in the West at the time he made it. At
the time the press had the full text of the statement and did not interpret it as a threat
against traitors:
•Vladimir Putin: Russian secret services don't kill traitors (The Telegraph)
•Vladimir Putin says Russian secret service no longer kills traitors (Mirror)
Putin refers to the exposure and arrest of agents of the Illegals Program on June 27,
2010. The Illegals Program (which is the name given it by the US Department of Justice)
planted Russian sleeper agents in the United States under cover as private citizens.
In July of 2010 the ten spies arrested in the United States were exchanged for three
Russian nationals who had been convicted of high treason for espionage one of whom was
Sergei Skripal. (This appears to be his only connection to the affair.) In August the
deported Russian spies were "warmly greeted" by Vladimir Putin who "led them in singing
patriotic songs".
After the program was exposed, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service began an
investigation in an attempt to determine whether the agents had been betrayed. Suspicion
fell on one Colonel Aleksander Poteyev who was in charge of undercover spying in the US. He
is thought to have fled Russia a few days before the arrest of the undercover agents. Where
he is now is unclear, but the opinion in the Russian press is that he went to the US, that
his children are also in the US, and that he may or may not have died in 2016.
The Statement
In the quote in question Putin is commenting on this affair. He is speaking during the
program Direct Line: A Conversation with Vladimir Putin in December 2010. Direct Line is a
marathon ask-me-anything-style show which he does once a year. The broadcast is on Youtube
(the question is asked at about 3:12:15 and Putin concludes his answer at about 3:15:15)
and there is a written transcript. Here is an English translation. The parts included in
some form in the quote from your question are in bold:
M. Sittel: Vladimir Vladimirovich, I'm taking a question from the website, this time it
is a personal one. It is clearly written by someone who loves memoirs. "When you spoke of
the recent spy scandal, you noted: traitors do not live long. The leaders of many
countries, as know from recollections, have signed orders for the the liquidation of the
enemies of the homeland oversees. The French have done so, the Israelis. Have you, as the
head of state, had occasion to make such a decision in the past?"
V.Putin: I do not think that the leaders of state signed such orders personally even in
the past. That is the work of the special services. And during Soviet times, in Stalin's
time, it is no secret, there were special subunits which carried out, including (these were
military subunits, it was not all they did), which when necessary carried out such
assignments: the liquidation of traitors. Such subunits were themselves liquidated long
ago.
It is known that actual many, say the Israeli special services used such methods, yes,
all things considered, as for today, far from all have given this up even now. The Russian
special services do not use such means.
With regard to traitors, they will curl up on their own, I assure you. That's because
Here we have this latest instance of betrayal in which they exposed a group of our
illegals. And these are officers! Do you get it? Officers. A man betrayed his friends, his
comrades in arms. These are people who laid their entire lives on the altar of patriotism.
What is it like to learn a language at native level, leave behind one's relatives, not to
be able to bury one's loved ones? Think about that for a minute! Someone has given his
entire life to serve his homeland and now this brute comes along who betrays people like
that. How is he going to live with that for the rest of his life? How will he look his
children in the eye, the swine?! Whatever went on there, whatever 30 pieces of silver those
people may have gotten, they will stick in their throat, I assure you. To spend your whole
life trying to keep out of view, to be unable to talk with your loved ones, it means that
someone who chooses such a fate will be regretting it a thousand times over.
So the quotation in the form you cite is garbled and has been interpreted in a manner
which is at odds with the original context which is a specific denial that Russia
assassinates traitors.
Notes on Translation
The word "загнуться" famously
translated "kick the bucket" literally means "to curl up" or "to curl down". What it means
here is open to interpretation. The translation "kick the bucket" can be found in
Wiktionary as a possible translation of a very informal use of the word. @bashbino's
assertion that such use refers to decline and death rather than sudden death is probably
correct. I suspect it is an allusion to the way plants whither and die. In 2010 the phrase
was translated "they will croak all by themselves" (The Telegraph, NBC News)
In translating "прятаться" as
"trying to keep out of view" I am trying to leave the question of whether the traitor is
hiding from assassins or simply from people he cannot look in the eye up to the reader's
interpretation. This word can refer to social avoidance such as the behavior of a child who
hides behind his mother's skirt.
The phrase "колом
станут у них в
горле" refers to difficulty swallowing due to revulsion, not
difficulty breathing. To make this clear I have translated it "will stick in their
throat".
The other hypothesis is that initial poisoning was done using fentanyl based mixture. Then it
was molded into nerve gas attack to create the false flag and blame Russia. In other words nerve
gar might be planted on the scene after Skripals were hospitalized.
Notable quotes:
"... The UK Government then, with the MI6, used the episode to forge a chemical attack on British soil, probably surfing on the wave of the already mentioned popular spy show that is airing right now in Britain. ..."
"... It is very likely a chemical attack never happened. It was probably a case of lack of sanitary fiscalization of the British services sector. But the UK has the means to forge the evidence, and give the OPCW (the OPCW is probably in the pockets of the West, but still, some formality may be necessary) "novichok" samples it already had in Porton Down (plausible deniability). ..."
"... Worst case scenario for the UK, however, some lower heads of the MI6 and the government will roll in order to preserve plausible deniability, so it was a low risk, low reward false flag operation by the British. ..."
It was, most probably, a case of poor sanitary conditions in the restaurant/pub the
Skripals visited, which resulted in a mass intoxication by food poisoning of circa 40 people
-- the Skripals being two of them. Those people went to the nearest hospital, while the
Skripals were intercepted by, probably, the MI6. It is very possible they are under captivity
right now (assuming they are alive).
The UK Government then, with the MI6, used the episode to forge a chemical attack on
British soil, probably surfing on the wave of the already mentioned popular spy show that is
airing right now in Britain. This is a powerful semiotic weapon, because entertainment
can, and is, used as a weapon of unconscious mass manipulation (manipulation of the
collective imaginary). The British people -- already inclined to be anti-Russian, given the
recent geopolitical events and its MSM propaganda warfare -- quickly (because it was mixed
with the unconscious) connected the dots the Government wanted them to connect (false
wisdom).
It is very likely a chemical attack never happened. It was probably a case of lack of
sanitary fiscalization of the British services sector. But the UK has the means to forge the
evidence, and give the OPCW (the OPCW is probably in the pockets of the West, but still, some
formality may be necessary) "novichok" samples it already had in Porton Down (plausible
deniability).
Russia was not affected: Putin was reelected with more votes (both in relative and
absolute terms) than in the last election, and Pavel Grudinin (the candidate of the West)
received just 12.xx% of the votes -- the worst result by the Communist Party since the fall
of the USSR -- the UK will have to transmute this episode into a hot war if it wants to
extract more fruits of this episode.
Worst case scenario for the UK, however, some lower heads of the MI6 and the
government will roll in order to preserve plausible deniability, so it was a low risk, low
reward false flag operation by the British.
"... There are similarities the Skripal poisoning and the 1997 poisoning of Khaled Mashal in Jordan. The poison used may be the same fentanyl based mixture. ..."
"... The thing that really made me suspect Israel was the claim by Boris Johnson that Russia has a secret program that develops novichok type chemical weapons for assassinations ..."
"... I do not think the British found out about the alleged Russian program by themselves. They received the information, along with the disinformation from a foreign intelligence service. Most likely this was Israeli Mossad. Why would Mossad feed the British lies about a Russian assassination program, unless they wanted to pin their own assassinations on Russia. ..."
In the previous open thread I posted a long analysis of the alleged war preparation of a NATO
land invasion of Syria, which I later published on The Duran . The thing that prompted
me to write this was Boris Johnson's latest allegations about a Russian assassination
program. In the end I left this speculation out of the published version.
The United States may be about to start a land invasion of Syria. The offensive would
start from the U.S. base at the Al Tanf border crossing and extend through Abu Kemal to the
American and Kurdish-held areas on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. The troops would be
supplied through Jordan. It is possible that Britain would also take part in this
operation.
The 2,400 man strong U.S. 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in Haifa in Israel on
March 14, 2018 aboard the three US Navy ships of the Iwo Jima amphibious ready group. The
Marines may be on their way to the Al Tanf base through Jordan. Another 200 U.S. troops are
said to have arrived in Al Tanf the previous week. Unconfirmed rumors claim that an
additional 2,300 British troops also arrived at the base along with Challenger tanks and
Cobra and Black Hawk helicopters.
It now seems evident that to real reason for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal was to
drum up British support for a war against Syria and Russia. One must must thus ask who would
most gains from such a war. If my analysis below is correct, then the answer would be Israel.
Several things make Israel a likely suspect for the poisoning:
Israel has a long history of assassinations abroad.
Israel is not a OPCW member and has an active CW program.
Mossad can perform hostile actions in Britain and still be counted as friendly. If
they got caught in the act, they would simply be deported in secrecy.
There are similarities the Skripal poisoning and the 1997 poisoning of
Khaled Mashal
in Jordan. The poison used may be the same fentanyl based mixture.
Netanyahu is the current prime minister of Israel. He also ordered the 1997
assassination attempt on Mashal.
The thing that really made me suspect Israel was the claim by Boris Johnson that Russia
has a secret program that develops novichok type chemical weapons for assassinations. It is
most likely true that Russian laboratories have been working in novichoks, like all major
weapons laboratories in the West. The part about assassinations is disinformation.
I do not think the British found out about the alleged Russian program by themselves. They
received the information, along with the disinformation from a foreign intelligence service.
Most likely this was Israeli Mossad. Why would Mossad feed the British lies about a Russian
assassination program, unless they wanted to pin their own assassinations on Russia.
So what was the plan then? To cease the assets Russian president's close associates - "the
kind of people who have Putin on speed dial"? To raise the level of Russophobia in GB to cosmic
level in an attempt to save May's government by splitting Labor Party on this monumental "national security" fake
)"
While split of Labor Party (which like Democratic Party in the USA has it is own faction of warmonger of Hillary Clinton
style) can help conservatives, the big fish they are trying to fry is probably Russia, not Corbyn/Labor party...
But they got more then they hoped for: probably some improvement of Brexit negotiating position and no doubt the military
companies benefit from all this
In other words they managed to kill several birds with one stone ?
B's link to the BBC piece on how well it's all going indicates a smugness asking for
take-down, in my view.
Among senior ministers and officials, there's quiet satisfaction that the Russia crisis
seems to be going according to plan. Maybe even better.
According to one senior government source, "it's gone at least as well as we'd
hoped".
I had to look at this phrasing hard to try to decipher the "it's" in how well it's all
gone. "According to plan" is also peculiar, but I sense the smugness in the reporter here is
oblivious to implications "the plan" was to add to the Russia hysteria and please the
Americans.
The "it's" must mean the intent to blame the Russians, flakey and insubstantial as it is,
and the sheep-like falling into line reported on (again smugly) in terms of items to tick
off. This clumsy language suggests something sinister, not merely stupid, is happening.
I would like to hear more on the speculation Skripal was mixed up with Steele and the
dossier. Have they been observed together recently? What suggests this connection in terms of
recent activity?
"... There is a tendency on the left to underestimate the fear that Corbyn inspires in The Establishment. They think that because he is a rather moderate Socialist in the old, and generally discredited, Social Democrat tradition he is no threat to the ruling class. In reality he is much more of a threat than someone that they can pin labels like extremist on. He showed as much in the last election when, despite blatant sabotage from the Party Staff, he came very close to victory. ..."
"... Operations like this one in Salisbury were mounted regularly in Northern Ireland and before that in the colonies. And these people don't work for their bosses, they work for themselves. They do as they please. They act withimpunity, the Old Boys network protects them. ..."
"... And they aren't very careful. They don't feel that they need to be-after all who wants to protect Putin or Corbyn? And they know that the neo-cons and Israel are with them. There is a good article in The Morning Star today https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/mask-military-industrial-complex ..."
"... It could very well be that they have unmasked the name, and rank, of the guy behind the plot to smear the two men that the Neocons fear and hate most: Putin and Corbyn. And, while doing so, to earn rewards from the oligarchs in London who are behind most of the killings being blamed on Russia. ..."
My guess is that this affair is the work of a circle of agents within British intelligence
circles. And that it was aimed at embarrassing the Labor Party and stalling what has been
looking like Corbyn's inexorable rise to power.
There is a tendency on the left to underestimate the fear that Corbyn inspires in The
Establishment. They think that because he is a rather moderate Socialist in the old, and
generally discredited, Social Democrat tradition he is no threat to the ruling class. In
reality he is much more of a threat than someone that they can pin labels like extremist on. He
showed as much in the last election when, despite blatant sabotage from the Party Staff, he
came very close to victory.
One thing that everyone understands is that The Establishment and the governing Tories in
particular, are in disarray. Nobody is in charge. Anyone who wants to take an initiative can do
so without fear of May, Johnson or the alleged leadership.
And the Intelligence services in Britain, including many of the Armed Forces, are arrogant
enough and well enough connected to the right wing.
Operations like this one in Salisbury were mounted regularly in Northern Ireland and
before that in the colonies. And these people don't work for their bosses, they work for
themselves. They do as they please. They act withimpunity, the Old Boys network protects
them.
It could very well be that they have unmasked the name, and rank, of the guy behind the
plot to smear the two men that the Neocons fear and hate most: Putin and Corbyn. And, while
doing so, to earn rewards from the oligarchs in London who are behind most of the killings
being blamed on Russia.
This story has also been uncovered, took 50 years for Porton Down chemical research centre
to come clean on poisoning a British soldier with Sarin telling him it was a flu test. Poor
fella.
"... The vast majority of people have already had drummed into them the fact (sic) that novichok could only be produced in Russia, so this will of course be interpreted as conclusive proof that "Putin did it". The real push for dramatic measures (e.g., World Cup) will begin at that point. ..."
It is reported that the OPCW is already carrying out tests on "samples taken from Salisbury".
This will presumably take some time, but eventually (2 weeks?) there will be an announcement
that it is indeed Novichok.
The vast majority of people have already had drummed into them the fact (sic) that
novichok could only be produced in Russia, so this will of course be interpreted as
conclusive proof that "Putin did it". The real push for dramatic measures (e.g., World Cup)
will begin at that point.
there had to be a physical person who did it and that means that person can be found
– the beauty of the luggage story was that it could be written off as a clever remote
attack
BMW has a good security system; this would require a risky break-in with a non-zero chance
of getting caught
the release of the substance in a car cannot be controlled – it could happen in a
crowded place, there could be an accident, Skripal could loan the car, etc
So I am skeptical, no 'intelligence' agency is this un-intelligent. Someone is releasing
more scenarios (luggage, car, drinks, ) to confuse the narrative and let it linger in the
media as in 'well, it was possible and if not that, maybe this was possible'. I don't know
who that 'someone' is, but it is not Boris Johnson or Teresa May. They clearly know
nothing.
The Senators' argument is that dependence on Russian gas undermines European security.
Whereas to the Russians, it is obvious that the Americans wish to replace cheap Rusian
piped gas with expensive liquefied American gas, which is a bi-product of fracking for oil
and currently in surplus. Some frackers in Canada are even having to pay someone to take
their gas.
Surprisingly, no one has yet pointed out that Russia could deliver Novichok to the whole
of Europe via Nordstream 2.
Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she
found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting. She had also lost
control of her bodily functions.
The woman, who asked not to be named , told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the
recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.
She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, but added
that she "feels fine".
So that mystery woman, an alleged doctor, who asked not to be named, who was the first
person to see the Skripals stricken, has disappeared. Obviously, she's the prime suspect. But
the BBC and the British "intelligence services" are just too dumb to see it.
I would like to point out that at the moment we do not know not only what Skripal was
poisoned with or by whom, we can't even be sure that anyone was poisoned with anything. All we
have is hot air, just like with Iraq WMD. From the same very "reliable" sources: British
intelligence services and British PM.
Notable quotes:
"... He said Mr Skripal appeared annoyed that their main course had taken 20 minutes to arrive – and appeared in a hurry to leave. ..."
"... 'They were only there for about 45 minutes. It was a quick lunch. He just wanted to get out of there. She was silent, perhaps embarrassed. ..."
I think the Skripals won't be able to talk at all. They are in a coma, and either they
will stay there, or they will wake up with massive brain damage, unable to think much, let
alone tell us what happened to them.
If they even know. For all we know they might have just as little idea why they were
almost killed as the rest of us. If it was Russia killing a traitor - then it must have
come out of the blue. If it was a false flag - ditto. So even if they woke up in full
possession of their mental faculties, they might know nothing more than anyone else.
Apparently the murderer(s) struck them without any personal contacts. So they won't even
know how they were poisoned. Just suddenly felt ill, and then lost consciousness. Or
something similar.
For all we know they might have just as little idea why they were almost killed as the
rest of us.
It would nonetheless be interesting to know why they (or at least he) was so upset in the
restaurant immediately before, another story (along with the doctor who treated them for 30
minutes with no subsequent ill effects) that has disappeared down the memory hole.
How the 'poisoned' spy plot unfolded: Sergei Skripal and his daughter left Zizzi
after arguing over a risotto before being found collapsed on a bench
The restaurant, in Castle Street, was busy when they arrived, but they declined the
seats offered to them at the front, instead selecting ones at the back, close to the
kitchen.
They began with a starter of garlic bread to share followed by two glasses of white
wine. . .
But within minutes Mr Skripal had become angry, a witness said. 'I think he was swearing
in Russian,' said the man, who did not want to be named.
'She was just sitting there quietly, and didn't really say anything. They were both
smartly dressed, she was in a black coat.
'They were speaking to each other in Russian.'
He said Mr Skripal appeared annoyed that their main course had taken 20 minutes to
arrive – and appeared in a hurry to leave.
He was going absolutely crazy, I didn't understand it and I couldn't understand him.
'They had not been seen for a little while by the front of house staff, but I think it
was more than that. He just wanted his food and to go. He was just shouting and losing his
temper. I would have asked him to leave. He just said "I want my food and my bill".
'The waiter took him the bill at the same time as the main course, which was
unusual.
'I don't think they paid all of the bill. I think they were given a discount because he
was so angry and agitated. He had to wait about 20 minutes for his main course.
'I think it was easier for the staff just to give him money to leave as he was so
angry.
'They were sitting by themselves at the back of the restaurant but I think people were
pleased when they left.
'They were only there for about 45 minutes. It was a quick lunch. He just wanted to
get out of there. She was silent, perhaps embarrassed. '
The script is really a replica of the one that previously worked out in the Litvinenko case
over a decade ago
Notable quotes:
"... Giving the British story the benefit of the doubt, let's see what would compel Russia's secret services to go after Skripal. In Russia, he was convicted and sentenced for treason, then pardoned and released to the British in a prisoner exchange that included ten Russian spies who had worked in the US, including the rather memorable Anna Chapman [image, left]. It is a very important rule of the spy business that those released in a spy swap are never acted against; if this rule were violated, the resulting bad faith would make spy swaps impossible to negotiate. Thus, if the Russian authorities were to order the hit on Skripal, this would not just be immoral and illegal. That would be neither here nor there, since there are instances where raison d'état obviates the need for such scruples. Worse than that, such behavior would have been unprofessional. ..."
"... The attack on Skripal is by no means an isolated incident; there have been multiple suspicious murders of high-profile Russians within the UK for which no adequate explanation has been given. There is a consistent pattern: a strange murder; an instantaneous leap to "blame Russia"; and an attempt to exploit the incident politically. It would be beneficial to put this incident in context, but that would require a much longer article. ..."
"... Under direction from their colleagues in the US, and closely following a script previously worked out in the Litvinenko case over a decade ago, the British secret services, in close coordination with the British government and the press, poisoned Skripal and his daughter using a nerve agent obtained from Britain's military research base at Porton Down in order to obtain an excuse to compromise the World Cup games in Russia this summer and also to create a scandal immediately before the Russian presidential election. ..."
"... As far as Skripal himself well, that's just a really sad story: reputation ruined, life ruined, living in exile, wife dead from cancer, son dead from liver failure, and now this. All for the sake of serving as a warning unto others, which is: Don't trust the Anglos, for they are devious and without shame. ..."
Britain is in a media frenzy over the recent poisoning of the former Russian intelligence
service colonel turned British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England.
British PM Theresa May demanded that Russia explain itself, claiming that they were poisoned
using a nerve agent called "Novichok" (Russian for "Newbie") that was a product of Soviet
biological weapons research. It is no longer produced and the destruction of its stockpiles has
been verified by international observers. However, its formula is in the public domain and it
can be synthesized by any properly equipped chemical lab, such as Britain's own Porton Down,
which, incidentally, is just an 18-minute drive from Salisbury.
May provided no evidence to back up her claims of Russian complicity in the attempted
murder. Russia's Foreign Ministry has requested that Britain turn over all available evidence
to back up its accusation of chemical weapons use (under the terms of the Chemical Weapons
Convention Britain must do so within 10 days) but Britain has refused. Therefore, Russia's FM
Sergei Lavrov has announced that Russia will not be responding to such baseless
allegations.
An important key to spotting a false flag is that the "knowledge" of who is to blame becomes
available before any evidence is in. For example, in the case of the shooting down of Malaysian
Airlines MH-17 over Eastern Ukraine, everyone in the West was convinced that "pro-Russian
separatists" were to blame even before the means could be established. To date, it isn't
understood how they could have done it given the equipment they had at their disposal.
In this [Salisbury] case, Russia was accused almost immediately, while British FM Boris
Johnson was quick to volunteer that Britain should not send its team to the World Cup in Russia
this summer, disclosing the real reason behind the assassination attempt.
Is there anything new and different behind this latest provocation? Not really; it seems
like a replay of the Litvinenko assassination back in November 2006. The choice of an exotic
poison (Polonium 210), the lack of evidence (the British claimed that compelling circumstantial
evidence exists but haven't provided any), and the instantaneous leap to "blame Russia" are all
the same. The Russians offered to prosecute whoever is responsible if only the British would
provide them with the evidence, but the British have failed to do so.
Giving the British story the benefit of the doubt, let's see what would compel Russia's
secret services to go after Skripal. In Russia, he was convicted and sentenced for treason,
then pardoned and released to the British in a prisoner exchange that included ten Russian
spies who had worked in the US, including the rather memorable Anna Chapman [image, left]. It
is a very important rule of the spy business that those released in a spy swap are never acted
against; if this rule were violated, the resulting bad faith would make spy swaps impossible to
negotiate. Thus, if the Russian authorities were to order the hit on Skripal, this would not
just be immoral and illegal. That would be neither here nor there, since there are instances
where raison d'état obviates the need for such scruples. Worse than that, such behavior
would have been unprofessional.
Then there is the question of timing. Russia's presidential elections will take place in
just a few days, on March 18. This is a particularly inopportune time to cause an international
scandal. What possible urgency could there have been behind killing a pardoned former spy who
no longer possessed any up-to-date intelligence, was living quietly in retirement, and at that
moment was busy having lunch with his daughter? If the Russian government were involved in the
poisoning, what possible reason could have been given for not waiting until after the
election?
The attack on Skripal is by no means an isolated incident; there have been multiple
suspicious murders of high-profile Russians within the UK for which no adequate explanation has
been given. There is a consistent pattern: a strange murder; an instantaneous leap to "blame
Russia"; and an attempt to exploit the incident politically. It would be beneficial to put this
incident in context, but that would require a much longer article.
You would be justified in thinking that none of this makes much sense. Given the dearth of
evidence, to make sense of this story we are forced to indulge in a bit of conspiracy theory.
However, if a conspiracy theory is what it takes to produce the simplest, most elegant and most
internally consistent explanation, then that in itself can be considered as circumstantial
evidence for the existence of a conspiracy. My simple and consistent explanation, expressed in
a single sentence, is as follows:
Under direction from their colleagues in the US, and closely following a script
previously worked out in the Litvinenko case over a decade ago, the British secret services, in
close coordination with the British government and the press, poisoned Skripal and his daughter
using a nerve agent obtained from Britain's military research base at Porton Down in order to
obtain an excuse to compromise the World Cup games in Russia this summer and also to create a
scandal immediately before the Russian presidential election.
This is deplorable, of course, but there is a silver lining to this cloud as far as Russia
is concerned: Britain (and, by association, the US) will now have a much harder time recruiting
double agents from inside the Russian government, since their recruitment prospects will now
know that they will remain vulnerable even if they escape, or are pardoned and exchanged.
Clearly, the British consider them disposable and see it fit to kill them in exotic ways, then
to exploit the incident for political purposes.
As far as Skripal himself well, that's just a really sad story: reputation ruined, life
ruined, living in exile, wife dead from cancer, son dead from liver failure, and now this. All
for the sake of serving as a warning unto others, which is: Don't trust the Anglos, for they
are devious and without shame.
Writer Dmitry Orlov is an American author of ten books including, The Five Stages of
Collapse . Learn more about his current projects and support his work at Patreon . This article was originally published at
Club Orlov
.
The perfect murder (attempted). No evidence at all...
To me it actually looks very imperfect. Something definitely happened, but the reaction and political management suggest chaos.
The term 'murky' is very appropriate.
The way it has been set-up requires follow-ups: clarify the fate of Skripals, 'nerve agent' specifics, and the 'Russia-did-it'
accusations. If it is not addressed it will be embarrassing. If there was a script, or conflicting scripts, it has gone beyond
that. Both Russia and UK are in a bind, a mutually destructive embrace, one will have to let go.
My theory is that it has more to do with Skripals and less with geo-politics. Crimes tend to happen among people who know each
other. And Julia just flew in the day before. If Skripals talk, it could get interesting (so they probably will not be allowed
to talk).
In most scenarios it leaves a major boo-boo on Boris's face, but given his face we might not notice...
You did not address my main point – there may have been no nerve agent involved at all, then some form of poison. It is true
that A&E doctors are not fully qualified to diagnose nerve agent effects, but things become really suspicious when this is followed
by the British own nerve agent production lab identifing the "nerve agent" but disallowing OPCW from doing its own checks.
If OPCW was the same as IOC, not following the procedures that the UK Government signed under would be unnecessary. The problem
for the British is that they do not control OPCW as much as they control WADA and IOC. OPCW procedures are crystal clear and it
is very hard to cheat.
"... My impression is that the nerve agent was introduced to the scene after Skripals were hospitalized as a doctor attended the
daughter for 30 min before the ambulance came. She did not develop any symptoms. So at this moment they lost conscience at the bench
there was no nerve gas on the scene. It might well be something else. ..."
I think the Skripals won't be able to talk at all. They are in a coma
How do you know that?
Has there been any public report on the medical condition of the Skripals? I haven't been able to find one. If you know of
such a report, will you please provide a link. In the meantime, one should keep in mind the statement of the Salisbury hospital
consultant, Steohen Davies, that:
no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury
So either (1) the Skripal's were not exposed to Novichok or any other nerve agent, or (2) though exposed to a nerve agent,
they were not treated at the hospital, which would be odd, though not impossible. Perhaps they were taken to the British chemical
weapons lab at Porton Down, just seven miles from Salisbury, where, presumably, there are specialists in detoxification of those
exposed to nerve agents.
But unless you adhere to (1) or (2), it would seem that you have to conclude that the Skripal's were not exposed to a nerve
agent. In other words, that the whole story is probably a sham, a fake terror attack, a story concocted to befuddle the plebs
and justify some new imperial aggression.
My impression is that the nerve agent was introduced to the scene after Skripals were hospitalized as a doctor attended the
daughter for 30 min before the ambulance came. She did not develop any symptoms. So at this moment they lost conscience at the
bench there was no nerve gas on the scene. It might well be something else.
IMHO this looks like an opening salvo in multi-step combination. Clumsy first step. It might well be designed to confiscate
a part of Russian money in London banks and thus create the motive for Russian oligarchs to remove Putin. Kind of color revolution
launched by disgruntled oligarchs.
That's probably why the UK government does not really care, if that is told to people true or not. Officials produce crazy
statements and generally behave quite carelessly, as if they completely despise public and truth dos not matter for them one bit.
The support of the USA is all that matter. Look for example at the most recent statement of Boris Johnson. But they needed the
pretext for further actions, be it another witch hunt or something more serious and they succeeded.
Their actions look completely logical if the resulting hysteria is needed just for a few weeks to start the next round of sanctions
against Russia. It might well be that the real goal is confiscation of "ill gotten" money of Russian oligarchs both to push them
to act against Putin and to compensate for Brexit losses
"... Does the idiot Johnson know what a "doctrine" is? Does he know how long they take to formulate and how long a time period they govern? Does he realise how hopeless the British government is looking, given that it took the view "a few months ago" that a foreign power was carrying out acts of war against Britain, but, don't worry, they're aware that they need to find themselves a new "doctrine", and they're on the job? ..."
"... As for "increasingly think", he's not supposed to be at a fucking debating society or at a high table somewhere. He's supposed to be the foreign minister. He's been asked in parliament whether Britain is at war or not. ..."
"... Boris Johnson is personally probably too off his head on cocaine to understand any of what's going on – he can talk the talk, or at least he can do the facial gestures, but he hasn't got a clue how to walk the walk – but consider what such guff says about the government as a whole. I mean not just the bunch of backhander-taking pricks in the cabinet, but both them and the permanent government of this country. ..."
"... Steering wheel? What's a steering wheel? Chop chop. Snort. ..."
One anonymous British blogger known only as '_N' wrote a rather prescient retort to the
Boris bluster that I felt was worth quoting in full:
Does the idiot Johnson know what a "doctrine" is? Does he know how long they take to
formulate and how long a time period they govern? Does he realise how hopeless the British
government is looking, given that it took the view "a few months ago" that a foreign power was
carrying out acts of war against Britain, but, don't worry, they're aware that they need to
find themselves a new "doctrine", and they're on the job?
As for "increasingly think", he's not supposed to be at a fucking debating society or at
a high table somewhere. He's supposed to be the foreign minister. He's been asked in parliament
whether Britain is at war or not.
Boris Johnson is personally probably too off his head on cocaine to understand any of
what's going on – he can talk the talk, or at least he can do the facial gestures, but he
hasn't got a clue how to walk the walk – but consider what such guff says about the
government as a whole. I mean not just the bunch of backhander-taking pricks in the cabinet,
but both them and the permanent government of this country.
Steering wheel? What's a steering wheel? Chop chop. Snort. This does major damage
to MI6.
MI6's main work is to collect intelligence from foreign sources. The higher up those sources
are, the more they have to present themselves as who they really are: the British secret
intelligence service. Above all an agent handler needs to win the trust of his potential
asset.
That means that before the aset gets caught and tortured or jailed, the agency has to look
after them. Any fears? Tell your handler. If the asset gets jailed, then oh DEAR, Sergei, how
terrible – swap him out of jail when the opportunity arises. Oh, and don't ask him to pay
for his own ticket from Vienna. That's what happened with Skripal.
They didn't swap him out because he would be able to help them much after his release, they
swapped him out because both MI6 and the FSB must look good in the eyes of their potential and
actual sources.
If an asset gets rubbed out on the street in Britain, or badly hurt in an attempt to rub
them out, that does NOT look good for MI6, however many articles may appear in the British
media saying "Putin" and "Russian spy" and "poison". That propaganda works fine for the
sheeple, but it damages MI6's image in a market they care about much more – potential and
actual foreign sources.
There is more than one market for the media narrative. The sheeple blame it on Putin, yes.
But if you're a colonel in Islamabad, a civil servant in Ankara, or a businessman in Donetsk,
and you're thinking of selling information to MI6, or you're already doing it, you want to know
that they'll protect you if you get into deep shit.
You want to know that, even if they tricked or "coerced" you in the first place into working
for them. That swapped out British asset might be you one day. You won't blame this attack on
Putin, you'll blame it on Britain. So expect the line to be put out – not necessarily in
the mainstream media – that Skripal was a dirty bastard who tried to get one over on his
kind hosts.
The Russians Didn't Do It
Make no mistake, the poisoning of Sergei Skripal is part of an on-going and long-running psy
war between Russia and the West, whoever carried out this attack had the intent of blackening
Russia's image in the minds of the British people. However, do you think Russia's psywar guys
give a toss about their image among the British and western sheeple or about "Russophobia" in
those markets?
Fear and talk in the said markets about how Russian psywar guys are manipulating politics
and media in the west (which they are) is GOOD for the Russian psywar effort, not BAD. Why?
Because it implies to western populations that western rulers are WEAK, unable to control what
goes on in western countries. That is really awful for morale. This is all in Psychological
Warfare 101.
In short, the more bleating there is in Britain and the West about Russian manipulation of
politics and media in those countries, the more the Russian psy war guys celebrate.
In psywar it's often very difficult to know the effect of what you've done. It's not like
bombing a factory, when you can see the aftermath from your satellite. Often you don't find out
what effect you've had, or you find out much later or in unexpected ways. If the other side is
complaining to its sheeple about your terrible psywar capabilities and successes all the time,
then you ARE finding out, and the news is that you're doing GREAT.
The psywar for WW3 has already begun. That's a normal thing with psywar: it begins before
physical conflict and continues after it. I doubt a date has been set for the start of the
physical-conflict stage but it won't be too far in the future.
Morale in Russia, unlike in the West, is very high. I mean morale in the sense that concerns
war planners. Conversely, morale in Britain and the West, particularly among the military, is,
quite frankly, abysmal.
The fact that Putin is not bleating like a crybaby about how foreign psywar agencies are
undermining his country is closely related to how his government is perceived among the Russian
sheeple, aka "morale". In my opinion, the west is far more likely to collapse than Russia.
Qui Bono
At the end of the day, the people who benefit from this crass and obvious attempt to ratchet
up the tension between Russia and the West and to poison the minds of the British people
against Russia is all too clear – it is the Zionist criminals who control Israel and the
US.
Why is an even more obvious answer, they are pushing the world ever closer to World War 3
and poisoning a former Russian spy on the streets of Britain is their way of sowing in the
minds of the British sheeple the notion that the Russians, and particularly Putin, are both
belligerent and reckless enough to disregard international law and justice, to ignore British
sovereignty and carry out a brutal murder on the streets of a quiet English town.
The message they wish to inculcate is one of fear and loathing of the big, bad Russian bear,
a clear psy op to prepare the British sheeple for the upcoming war with Russia.
"... Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is behind this attack is implausible, but that did not prevent the UK government from launching into an aggressively impertinent confrontation of Russia, and then using the Russian government's understandably annoyed response as supposed further evidence of supposed Russian guilt. ..."
"... After an initial scepticism the usual US sphere suspects (the US, France, Germany) lined up behind the British government's spurious feigned outrage, presumably having been reassured that the UK government would not seek to invoke NATO's Article 5). ..."
"... Am I wrong in thinking that there are thousands of Russians living in Germany, USA, Italy, Cyprus and so on but they are only poisoned in the UK? If I am mistaken on this then I apologies. ..."
"... If this letter is genuine then there has never been any nerve agent in Salisbury. ..."
There is no doubt that Skripal was feeding secrets to MI6 at the time that Christopher
Steele was an MI6 officer in Moscow, and at the the time that Pablo Miller, another member of
Orbis Intelligence, was also an MI6 officer in Russia and directly recruiting agents. It is
widely reported on the web and in US media
that it was Miller who first recruited Skripal. My own ex-MI6 sources tell me that is not quite
true as Skripal was "walk-in", but that Miller certainly was involved in running Skripal for a
while. Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely
alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant
to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover
that Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active
in the internet scrubbing.
It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp
the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump
paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate"
affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis
dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely
demolish, as
I did here . Steele's motive was, like Skripal's in selling his secrets, cash pure and
simple. Steele is a charlatan who knocked up a series of allegations that are either wildly
improbable, or would need a high level source access he could not possibly get in today's
Russia, or both. He told the Democrats what they wish to hear and his audience – who had
and still have no motivation to look at it critically – paid him highly for it.
I do not know for certain that Pablo Miller helped knock together the Steele dossier on
Trump, but it seems very probable given he also served for MI6 in Russia and was working for
Orbis. And it seems to me even more probable that Sergei Skripal contributed to the Orbis
Intelligence dossier on Trump. Steele and Miller cannot go into Russia and run sources any
more, and never would have had access as good as their dossier claims, even in their MI6 days.
The dossier was knocked up for huge wodges of cash from whatever they could cobble together.
Who better to lend a little corroborative verisimilitude in these circumstances than their old
source Skripal?
Skripal was at hand in the UK, and allegedly even close to Miller in Salisbury. He could add
in the proper acronym for a Russian committee here or the name of a Russian official there, to
make it seem like Steele was providing hard intelligence. Indeed, Skripal's outdated knowledge
might explain some of the dossier's more glaring errors.
But the problem with double agents like Skripal, who give intelligence for money, is that
they can easily become triple agents and you never know when a better offer is going to come
along. When Steele produced his dodgy dossier, he had no idea it would ever become so prominent
and subject to so much scrutiny. Steele is fortunate in that the US Establishment is strongly
motivated not to scrutinise his work closely as their one aim is to "get" Trump. But with the
stakes very high, having a very loose cannon as one of the dossier's authors might be most
inconvenient both for Orbis and for the Clinton camp.
If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence.
To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely
skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad
as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to
assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own
international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian
reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria
and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's
international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia.
Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation,
and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to
Salisbury to attack Skripal with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to
believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point.
I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. I write as someone who believes that agents of
the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried
out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on
Chechnya. I believe the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Georgia is illegal. On the
other hand, in Syria Russia has saved the Middle East from domination by a new wave of US and
Saudi sponsored extreme jihadists.
The naive view of the world as "goodies" and "baddies", with our own ruling class as the
good guys, is for the birds. I witnessed personally in Uzbekistan the willingness of the UK and
US security services to accept and validate intelligence they knew to be false in order to
pursue their policy objectives. We should be extremely sceptical of their current anti-Russian
narrative. There are many possible suspects in this attack.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British
Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
The scam must be so obvious and damaging that even a 'believer' in the other obvious scams
(Litvinenko) and the 'illegal' occupation of Crimea and 'parts of Georgia' must disassociate
from it. I think that he might know more than simple conjectures about the role of the third
party he alludes cautiously to, the party which has not only the motives to do it, but also
the means and opportunities to operate freely under the radar which never sees it.
Here is one thing i noted about this meme In the American film 'The sum of all fears' the
term novochok is used "novochok binary nerve agent" Now if you are going to lie, coat tailing
on a BS yank movie is going to have advantages is it not? How many millions saw that movie?
How many other movies are used to pre-imbed this type of predictive programming? More than a
few is my guess . The instant i heard the 'novochok' claim i immediately recalled that movie
and the terror it had gathered into it's celluloid.
In my opinion there is not a shred of evidence that Russia did it, and there is no
motive.
The motive is the other way round, it fits in the climate of demonising Russia.
Maybe the prelude to war, the last one, not a human being will survive.
Great to see this promoted at Unz. It's a vital story at the moment, which shines a very
unflattering light on the UK government and should make anyone foolish enough to think the
problems that were exposed over the manipulation of the country into the Iraq war in 2003
were particular to the government of Tony Blair or to that issue, think again. The truth is
that the misrepresentation of intelligence, the blustering suppression of dissent by
bombastic pseudo-patriotism, and the lockstep mainstream media support for it, are all
endemic to the UK (and US, mutatis mutandis).
Murray stands at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me, and we would agree
about very little outside of this kind of thing. But I salute his courage and persistence in
standing up to the inevitable bullying and pressures that are brought to bear on people
raising this kind of thing. Not as perniciously thuggish as the pressures placed upon race
realist and English nationalist dissidents, but perhaps more menacing in some ways.
It is interesting to note that Murray – a longstanding UK dissident who has been
making trouble for the authorities publicly since at least 2004, states (see Bothered by
Midgies, linked above) that: " In 13 years of running my blog I have never been exposed to
such a tirade of abuse as I have for refusing to accept without evidence that Russia is the
only possible culprit for the Salisbury attack ". That partly reflects the shame he has
brought upon the few members of our mainstream media (so called journalists working for the
BBC, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent (sic!), etc) still able to feel it, by
doing their job when they had notably failed. It also reflects the importance of the work he
is doing.
The idea that Russia is behind this attack is implausible, but that did not prevent the UK
government from launching into an aggressively impertinent confrontation of Russia, and then
using the Russian government's understandably annoyed response as supposed further evidence
of supposed Russian guilt.
After an initial scepticism the usual US sphere suspects (the US,
France, Germany) lined up behind the British government's spurious feigned outrage,
presumably having been reassured that the UK government would not seek to invoke NATO's
Article 5). The confrontation they have initiated will be far more costly to us all in the
long run than the crime itself (grim though that has surely been for the individuals
affected), and so it is vital for those few who can see through the blizzard of propaganda to
continue to rip holes in the UK government's increasingly threadbare case.
The substance they claim was used is of Russian origin.
There is a motive for Russia to have carried out the attack – killing a
traitor.
There is supposedly a "track record" of Russia committing such crimes.
There's no other hypothesis.
These points are all bunk, as set out below, and the information obtained by Murray has
helped hugely in establishing that fact. But none of the refutations is remotely complicated
or hard to spot, and any honest journalist should have been confronting the government with
them from day one.
1 The substance they claim was used is of Russian origin.
As Murray has highlighted, the most the British government can say is that the substance
they allege was used was "of a type developed by Russia", and in fact it could have been
produced in any other country over the past ten years and was in fact produced in Iran in
2016 under OPCW supervision. So the fact that it was originally developed in Russia decades
ago is evidence of nothing.
2 There is a motive for Russia to have carried out the attack – killing a
traitor.
In fact Skipal was a spy who was unmasked by the Russians, tried, convicted and
imprisoned. His offence was clearly not considered particularly serious, as treasons go,
because he was only given 13 years in prison, and he was clearly considered no longer a
threat because he was subsequently exchanged for some Russian spies.
3 There is supposedly a "track record" of Russia committing such crimes.
There is no track record of the Russians killing exchanged former spies. Indeed British
intelligence effectively admitted that because they were quite happy for Skripal to live
openly under his own name, with his address in the public domain and no protection given to
him, unlike for instance organised crime witnesses who do actually face enemies with a track
record of killing them.
4 There's no other hypothesis.
Of course there are plenty of other hypotheses with at least as much plausibility as the
dubious case against Russia. Any of the governments seeking to promote and foment
confrontation of Russia, over Ukraine or Syria, or just for internal political benefits, had
a motive for committing this crime, and doing it in the method (a "wmd" attack on British
soil) guaranteed to create the maximum hysteria and propaganda value. That brings the US,
Israel, the Ukraine and the UK into the frame, all of whom would certainly have had the
capability to manufacture the substance. Then there are issues around the shadowy criminal
and political elements with whom Skripal was potentially involved, from Russian mafia to the
US security state figures currently mixed up with British intelligence in the ongoing
anti-Russian/anti-Trump nonsense.
In reality there is no shortage of alternative hypotheses. It's just that the BBC like the
rest of the mainstream media failed to mention any of them. As usual, acting as stenographers
for the powerful, rather than agents of truth.
Considering the Brits dragged us into two World Wars and a bunch of lesser but nevertheless
costly messes, why the f *** do we listen to, much less believe, anything they say that
points even in the general direction of conflict with Russia?
Does anyone in American leadership even fathom that the UK have a big chip on their
shoulder for us knocking them off the top of the list of great empires and adding insult to
injury by essentially forcing them to dismantle their empire, and then pushing them into a
vassal state of the EU so we could better manage them as but one of many vassals?
Am I wrong in thinking that there are thousands of Russians living in Germany, USA, Italy,
Cyprus and so on but they are only poisoned in the UK?
If I am mistaken on this then I apologies.
There is one 'track record', Litvinov, killed by polonium.
What secret service would be so dumb as to use this, pointing immediately to state murder
?
Accidents, and suicides are quiet methods for keeping people silent for all times.
The Ukrainian pilot that, according to Russia, by accident shot down MH17, just committed
suicide.
I wonder if he was suicided.
Sensational murders, or attempted murders, have quite different purposes.
Blaming someone.
Who believes that Arafat was not murdered, does anyone believe that the Diana accident was
an accident, who believes the Hess and Kelly suicides ?
Why was Palme murdered, who indeed thinks that Anna Lyndh was killed accidentally, that
Barschel committed suicide, that Mölleman died accidentally ?
And so on, and so forth.
There is one 'track record', Litvinov, killed by polonium.
Even if one chooses to believe the pretty dubious story concocted to blame that event on
the Russian government, it doesn't represent any "track record" relevant to the Skripal case.
Litvinenko was a former KGB/FSB thug who had found himself on the wrong side of a Kremlin
power struggle and fled justice. He was not, like Skripal, a previously unmasked, tried,
convicted, jailed and exchanged former spy.
Who says that there is no proof that Putin did it? Boris Johnson personally found a ripped off shirt next to the bench of Scripals and "Vlad
WOS HIER" spray painted on the nearest wall.
Seriously, there was apparently an interesting letter from the Salisbury hospital to The
Times:
Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", March 14),
****** may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning
in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning .
****** Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have
been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood
tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by
the agent involved.
Stephen Davies,
Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
If this letter is genuine then there has never been any nerve agent in Salisbury.
And all of a sudden there is a GB EU agreement over a trade transition period.
I wondered why May set up the poison gas murder show.
I now wonder if this show was the price she was asked to pay, making GB the enemy of Russia,
preventing GB trade with Russia.
It reminds me of a new mafia member, asked to commit a crime, to show that he's real
criminal.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed allegations that Russia was behind the early
March poisoning of former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. It is
"nonsense and absurd to claim that Russia would do anything like that before the elections
and the World Cup," Putin said, touching on the subject for the fist time since the
incident. He was responding to a reporter's question in his campaign headquarters, as early
results of Sunday's presidential election indicated his landslide victory.
"Concerning this tragedy that you've mentioned, I learned about it from the media,"
Putin told reporters.
He dismissed the theory that it was a military-grade toxic agent that was used in the
poisoning, because if that were the case "people, of course, would have died on the
spot."
"It's an obvious fact, you should simply understand that," he said.
The Skripals, 66-year-old Sergei and 33-year-old Yulia, were found slumped on a bench in
Salisbury on March 4. They remain in hospital, in critical but stable condition.
Moscow is open to working with London to investigate the poisoning, provided the UK is
willing, which is not the case at the moment.
"We have not seen this so far, but we keep that on the agenda while planning our
bilateral work," Putin said, adding that Russia is ready "to discuss any issues and
overcome any difficulties" with London.
Moscow does not possess any chemical weapons stockpiles, Putin said.
"Russia doesn't have such means, and we have destroyed all our chemical weapons under the
supervision of international observers," he stated, adding that Russia was the first to get
rid of its arsenals while other countries "have promised [to do the same], but have not met
their commitments yet, unfortunately."
Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that, contrary to UK Prime Minister Theresa May's
claims that there could be "no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was
responsible," the toxin could have originated from the UK itself, Slovakia, the Czech
Republic or Sweden.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on Saturday that the project
"is not the creation of Russia or the Soviet Union," pointing to the fact that several
countries have been researching the substance since the 1990s, when many former Soviet
scientists fled to the West.
On Sunday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson doubled down on his accusations that
Russia was complicit in the incident, claiming that the UK has been collecting evidence "over
the past 10 years" of Moscow devising deadly nerve agents for the purpose of assassination.
Moscow has requested samples of the alleged nerve agent to be provided to Russia through
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) channels, but the request has been
repeatedly rebuked by the UK.
"... CUI BONO ? Who Benefits? MIC, NeoCons, Zionists, Rothschilds banking cartel. ..."
"... Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'. ..."
You're not "just sayin'", you're just babbling. Just as Assad would never be stupid enough
to use chemical weapons when he's already winning bigly, Russia would never be stupid enough
to use chemical weapons on a has-been spy, when there's a hundred other ways to kill him.
Anybody who insists on the chemical weapons narrative in either of these cases is pushing a
narrative, not having a discussion. Why are you pushing this narrative, I wonder, my little 5
month old "Warrior for freedom."?
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood
movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or
anyone else, bother to use such a messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy?
Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that wouldn't have garnered
all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove
him in front of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning
his beard? Really? Well, aside from the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken
seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough to poison his beard,
why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
Well we know that. But the real point I want to make is that Russia always reacts to such
nonsensical and outright false accusations; Russia always responds, rejects of course the
accusations but usually with lengthy explanations, and with suggestions on how to come to the
truth – as if the UK and the west would give a shit about the truth – why are they
doing that? Why are you Russia, even responding?
That is foolish sign of weakness . As if Russia was still believing in the goodness of the
west, as if it just needed to be awakened. What Russia is doing, every time, not just in this
Skripal case, but in every senseless and ruthless attack, accusations about cyber hacking,
invading Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and not to speak about the never-ending saga of Russia-Gate,
Russian meddling and hacking into the 2016 US Presidential elections, favoring Trump over
Hillary. Everybody with a half brain knows it's a load of crap. Even the FBI and CIA said that
there was no evidence. So, why even respond? Why even trying to undo the lies, convince the
liars that they, Russia, are not culpable?
Every time the west notices Russia's wanting to be a "good neighbor" – about which the
west really couldn't care less, Russia makes herself more vulnerable, more prone to be accused
and attacked and more slandered.
Why does Russia not just break away from the west? Instead of trying to 'belong' to the
west? Accept that you are not wanted in the west, that the west only wants to plunder your
resources, your vast landmass, they want to provoke you into a war where there are no winners,
a war that may destroy entire Mother Earth, but they, the ZionAnglo handlers of Washington,
dream that their elite will survive to eventually take over beautiful grand Russia. That's what
they want. The Bashing is a means towards the end. The more people are with them, the easier it
is to launch an atrocious war.
The Skripal case is typical. The intensity with which this UK lie-propaganda has been
launched is exemplary. It has brought all of halfwit Europe – and there is a lot of them
– under the spell of Russia hating. Nobody can believe that May Merkel, Macron are such
blatant liars that is beyond what they have been brought up with. A lifelong of lies pushed
down their throats, squeezed into their brains. Even if something tells them – this is
not quite correct, the force of comfort, not leaving their comfort zone- not questioning their
own lives – is so strong that they rather cry for War, War against Russia, War against
the eternal enemy of mankind. – I sadly remember in my youth in neutral Switzerland, the
enemy always, but always came from the East. He was hiding behind the "Iron Curtain".
The West is fabricating a new Iron Curtain. But while doing that, they don't realize they
are putting a noose around their own neck. Russia doesn't need the west, but the west will soon
be unable to survive without the East, the future is in the east – and Russia is an
integral part of the East, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), that encompasses
half the world's population and controls a third of the world's economic output.
Mr. Putin, you don't need to respond to insults from the west, because that's what they are,
abusive insults. The abject slander that Johnson boy threw at you is nothing but a miserable
insult; you don't need to respond to this behavior. You draw your consequences.
Dear President Putin, Dear Mr. Lavrov, Let them! Let them holler. Let them rot in their
insanity . – Respond to the UK no longer with words but with deeds, with drastic deeds.
Close their embassy. Give all embassy staff a week to vacate your country, then you abolish and
eviscerate the embassy the same way the US abolished your consulates in Washington and San
Francisco – a bit more than a year ago. Surely you have not forgotten. Then you give all
Brits generously a month to pack up and leave your beautiful country (it can be done –
that's about what Washington is forcing its vassals around the globe to do with North Korean
foreign laborers); block all trade with the UK (or with the entire West for that matter), block
all western assets in Russia, because that's the first thing the western plunderers will do,
blocking Russian assets abroad. Stealing is in their blood.
Mr. Putin, You don't need to respond to their lowly abusive attacks, slanders, lies. You and
Russia are way above the level of this lowly western pack. Shut your relation to the west. You
have China, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), Russia is part of the OBI –
President Xi's One Belt Initiative – the multi-trillion development thrive, emanating
from China, connecting continents – Asia, Africa, Europe, South America – with
infrastructure, trade, creating hundreds of millions of decent jobs, developing and promoting
science and culture and providing hundreds of millions of people with a decent life.
What would the west do, if suddenly they had no enemy, because the enemy has decided to
ignore them and take a nap? China will join you.
Everything else, responding, justifying, explaining, denying the most flagrant lies, trying
to make them believe in the truth is not only a frustrating waste of time, it's committing
political suicide. You will never win. The west doesn't give a hoot about the truth –
they have proven that for the last two thousand years or more. And in all that time, not an
iota of conscience has entered the west's collective mind. The west cannot be trusted.
Period.
Putin is all too happy to see West tirelessly attack and insult Russia as this kind of
antagonism solidifiers Russian people unity and support for the Czar Vladimir. He does not
need to lift a finger, just report the news from abroad. All economic and social problems are
now secondary in Russia with this vicious anti-Russia campaign in the West and its weekly
russophobic hysteria.
If you would listen to Putin who does give long interviews regularly you see that he
understands that all of the money and energy being directed toward war is retarding the
growth he and his people want to see in Russia.
That country has paid dues we can't get our minds around between the soviet overthrow of
the government and WW2, never mind Stalin's years of the gulag. There is a free Russian movie
with English titles on Youtube and it's called The Chekist. Strongly think it's worth your
time to watch it.
The governments of these "big player" countries put on kabuki theater, because behind
closed doors and through back channels, they are working together to enslave the peoples.
That's why Russia keeps responding.
We're witnessing classic psychopathic warfare. Psychopaths play mind games. They make
outrageous accusations and force you to spend thousands of hours spinning your wheels in an
attempt to Prove A Negative.
I know because I worked for a psychopath who did it frequently, maintaining a culture of
fear even among the executive board members. One nice fellow was so affected by the stress
that he developed cancer and died. (The manipulative SOB didn't have the balls to attend the
funeral. Too bad.)
Again, this is classic psychopathy. I was singled out at one point for something special,
being accused in front of the Board of something "Too Horrible To Describe" (those exact
words), but if I apologized for "it" then there would be an opportunity to make amends.
Obviously, I had no idea, and got so rattled (I was a stupid kid) that I nearly burst into
tears. A few minutes after I left, I heard them all laughing about it. People are not human
beings to a psychopath, they're instruments to be manipulated.
The average American zombie may still be clueless to this, but Russian officials
understand, surely. America and its vassals are a Pathocracy. The directives and messaging
coming out of Washington and other corners are going to get a lot more zany, because
psycohpaths are nothing if not imaginative when it comes to rationalization and avoidance of
responsibility.
I'm convinced of 2 things: 1) Russia's strategy is to document everything like crazy for
the purpose of providing a chronicle when SHTF (letting the psychopaths dig their own hole,
in other words), and 2) When SHTF, it will not involve Russia directly at all. Things are
going to get so loony that rational Americans will rise up. In other words, Revolution is
inevitable as long as pscyhopaths are allowed to continued to grind everything that's good
about the West into the dirt.
Psychopaths: Expect no sympathy when it all comes down. For all the terror and death that
you have rained upon the rest of the world since WW2, you deserve everything coming to
you.
Psychopaths enjoy the thrill of lying and sowing discord amongst anyone they can bully,
i.e. Staff in lower positions, (yes the chief burger flipper can be a psychopath to the
junior burger flippers - it's not all about CEO's). They also bully anyone smaller, weaker or
less fortunate than themselves. A lot of them do get locked up, but too many roam free.
Agreed. I think the author is missing the point. In my opinion, the Russians are speaking
to western people, not the corrupt leaders, when they expose the truth, and they're gaining
credibility in the process. With the constant barrage of lies the West receives from the
media and the imperialistic misdeeds constantly committed by the U.S. govt, Russia's best
propaganda campaign is simply stating the truth.
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
The secretiveness of the May government is not helping. However it looks as though the police officer who was also
incapacitated, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who thankfully is on the road to recovery (as are the Skripals), was not the
officer who found them slumped on the bench. It seems that he was incapacitated after he went to the Skripal's home, also in
Salisbury. Since he was a detective, not a beat officer, that would make sense.
... ... ...
Although they have been very free with their accusations against President Putin, who faces re-election, the May government
have been less than forthcoming in backing up their offensive allegations with evidence. They have not even identified the
variant of Novichok used to try and murder the Skripals and DS Bailey. (Under the doctrine of transferred malice the
intelligence officers who carried out the attack, almost certainly from GO2, are criminally responsible for the attempt to
murder the officer.)
Moreover the May government has not made a sample available to the Russian government, as they are obliged to under the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). They haven't even forwarded a sample to the highly competent Technical Secretariat of the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, established under CWC Article VIII. The May government clearly has
something to hide.
... ... ...
The Cui Bono principle
The 'who gains?' principle is a valuable intelligence analysis tool. President Putin had
nothing whatsoever to gain by whacking Col Skripal. Although he was a convicted traitor he had
been pardoned and exchanged in a spy swap. Moreover his daughter was living openly in
Moscow. Col Skripal himself is reported to have had fairly recent contact with the Russian
Embassy in Kensington Gardens.
Not even the old KGB ever went back on a spy swap. They would have regarded it as
nekulturny . The SVR, Russia's external intelligence service, are highly professional.
They're also very nice people. As an agency they would be even less likely than the
KGB to go back on a spy-swap. No one would ever do a swap with them again.
The UK's failure to send a request to Moscow over the Skripal case via Organization for
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) channels points to a lack of legal basis for a proper
investigation, Russia's Foreign Minister said. "The fact, that they [UK officials]
categorically rejects to file an official request and deliberately and arrogantly fan
anti-Russian rhetoric in the public sphere bordering on hysteria, indicates that they clearly
understand they have no formal pretext to go down a legal road," Lavrov said on Friday,
referring to the British authorities' allegations that Russia, and, notably, President Vladimir
Putin, were behind the plot to poison the former double agent and his daughter. Read more
Instead, UK officials have tried to "move all this to the sphere of political rhetoric,
to Russophobia in the hope that, as it was in many other cases, the West will align,"
Lavrov said.
The Russian top diplomat argued that British PM Theresa May's accusatory tirade in the
Parliament, as well as the summoning of the Russian ambassador in the Foreign Office, cannot
serve as a substitute for the formal proceedings envisaged in the Convention for Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons.
Claims made by British authorities to the contrary are "absolutely illiterate,"
Lavrov stressed, noting that the UK must file an official request in writing if it genuinely
seeks to elicit the truth. For the moment being, Russia is still waiting for British
authorities to submit such a request under the framework of the convention, he said.
The fact that the UK government is unwilling to question its own snap judgments should be a
cause for concern in a society that prides itself as a democracy, Lavrov said. He was referring
to the outrage that was sparked by Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn when he was heckled by the
MP after he cautioned them against drawing instant conclusions in the case and asked for
concrete evidence of Russia's culpability.
"So I think the right approach is to seek the evidence; to follow international treaties,
particularly in relation to prohibited chemical weapons, because this was a chemical weapons
attack, carried out on British soil," Corbyn's spokesman said following the debate, which
led to him being ostracized by the media.
On Thursday, Corbyn doubled down on his dissent, writing an op-ed for the
Guardian that said: "To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a
fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security."
While UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson said that the UK would allow the international OPCW
experts in The Hague to review the British analysis of the sample, the UK refuses to enact the
mechanism in the OPCW that calls for a thorough investigation, Lavrov said, adding that "if
you appeal to this organization, you must comply with the provisions of the Convention that
stipulate filing a request to us, because we are suspected of being a country of origin and
even the country which had used this poisoning agent, and, providing us with samples of this
agent, so we, together with OPCW experts, can analyze it."
However, "the British don't want to use any of this," he added, noting that when
other countries express solidarity with the UK's stance, it looks like a "total sham and an
insult to the common sense."
Meanwhile, Johnson claimed that London was "entirely in conformity with OPCW
procedures" on Friday, alleging that the evidence of Russia's involvement in the incident
is "overwhelming."
Former US Army Psychological Warfare officer Scott Bennett, Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn,
Martin Summers, Tony
Gosling
www.thisweek.org.uk
Fri 16 March 2018
The Russian Ambassador to the UK is giving an interview now to RT's Anastasia Churkina about
the chemical-poisoning of a former Russian spy allegations being made by PM Theresa May and the
British government against Russia and President Putin.
The Main Points:
It is obvious the charges by the UK against Russia about this "poisoning" incident are false,
and expose a deeper strategy of deceit to obtain political objectives. the British government
is refusing to answer any questions, provide any material, invite international scientific
inspections, and have tried to emotionally hyperventilate this fake story into a nightmare
reality. Why? The Globalist UK-EU-US-SOROS types are desperate to ignite a war in order to hide
in its flames. The "psychological operation" seems to be attempting to achieve the following
objectives:
The political-career stabilization of the establishment Prime Minister Theresa May, who
has been slipping into madness and oblivion since BREXIT;
The demonization of Russia as an easy enemy that distracts the public away from the slow
destruction of civil liberties and rights and freedoms by the rising police state;
The cultivation and preparation of the public mind to be receptive to increased
domination and control by the government;
The expansion of the "chemical weapon" narrative as a potential threat against "New
York", as claimed by US UN Rep Nikki Haley, as well as other UK-US-NATO members;
The potential "suspension" of the BREXIT and European Union break-up using this incident
as a "call to reverse course and re-integrate the European Union with Britain and France as a
matter of "continental security against Russia";
The manipulation of American President Donald Trump to buy in and partner in the lie, and
participate in the political war as a pre-text for the military one brewing;
Justify increased military movement of weapons into Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen to try and
counter Russia-Iran's success in the Syrian war against Wahhabi-Saudi-Israeli terrorists
pushing ISIS/AL NUSRA to try and destabilize Syrian President Bashar Assad;
The blow back will be a separation of the thinking people from the mindless idiots in
society, and an increase in social distrust and hostility towards the politicians and media and
government institutions fomenting instability and the destruction of personal civil liberty
through manufactured national hysteria. Essentially they've cried wolf far too many times to be
given any respect by truthful citizens.
Having warned it would retaliate proportionately, this morning Russia did just that when it
expelled 23 British diplomats - the same number as the UK kicked out a few days earlier as
punishment for Moscow's alleged poisoning of a former double agent. It also ordered the closure
of the UK consulate in St Petersburg and the Moscow British Council, a cultural and educational
organization.
Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the British ambassador to Moscow and told him
that the measures are "in response to the provocative actions of the British side and the
unsubstantiated accusations" against Russia, the ministry said. Russia gave the British
diplomats one week to leave. "If further actions of an unfriendly nature are taken against
Russia, the Russian side reserves the right to take other retaliatory measures," the ministry
said.
You like my comments on the Team of Sycophants? You have not seen what I will write about
the Democrats. Pelosi? She is a self centered wretch enriched by her silicon valley admirers
through no merit of her own who despises the people her father fought for. HC? I hope she is
a drunk. I could like her better if she is. Her contempt for ordinary Americans who do not
share her adolescent utopian revolutionary ideals is laughable. Perhaps Wellesley did that to
her. My uncle endowed a chair there but I never liked him. pl
Trump seems unable to manage and keep a team of people of exceptional ability because he
fears a cabal forming that will 'capture' him and steal his glory?
Hannity and Bolton are definitely his type of sycophants, distrusted by the establishment
and desperate for power.
When will someone/something put a halt to this AIPAC/Israel/Neo-con march to war with Iran
and possibly Russia?
I consider myself a Progressive who hates the establishment Democratic Party. The Russia
hate is off the rails and dangerous. WTF is going on in this country? Have they lost their
friggin minds?
Hear! Hear! Even NPR agrees with.... Donald J. Trump:
"The claim Black and Hispanic unemployment are at or near record lows. The short answer
Trump's numbers are right," ...... "Trump is right that African-American unemployment hit a
record low in December. The unemployment rate for black Americans is currently 6.8 percent,
the lowest level recorded since the government started keeping track in January 1972..... And
he's also right that the Hispanic unemployment rate is down a point over the last year"
Larry Wilkerson writes:
"Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's defense minister, is scheduled to give the keynote address at
the Jerusalem Post's conference in New York in April. The title of his address is published
as "The Coming War With Iran." Any American citizen who believes this White House team will
not involve the U.S. in Israel's war needs to check into a mental ward." http://lobelog.com/the-most-important-hearings-of-the-young-century/
Colonel Lang I think our president wants and demands admirers and not advisers. With what I
have experienced back here in Lotus Aters town, that self centred mentality fits with Beverly
Hills star types, and Goldman Sachs fund managers
which the combination of this two personality brings to mind a CAA agent.
McCabe has been fired today....48 hrs before he was due to retire and be able to collect his
20 year pension....seems a little too vengeful to me.
Was there ever any real investigation into his alleged favoring of Hillary in the FBI
investigation? I don't remember the details.
Former U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey says, "Reluctantly I have concluded that President
Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US
interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason
under the sway of Mr Putin." https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/974748724176941056
And now, apparently on this Friday night, the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who
is at this time perhaps not the official deputy director any more but who was on the payroll
with accumulated vacation or sick leave or a similar such thing, was officially fired from
the Bureau.
This is two days before he could retire with full benefits, as he turns 50 years of age on
Sunday. Since he is most likely a civil service employee, even at his job as the number two
person at the FBI, he would be covered by federal civil service law. I am not familiar with
the federal process, but a civil service employee can usually contest the termination of
employment, although it is in an "administrative proceeding", which has different rules than
a lawsuit. The result of an administrative hearing can be appealed into a regular trial court
in Texas, but with restrictions and limits on the rules of evidence and procedure that govern
civil lawsuits. The federal rules regarding the appeal of an administrative ruling may be
similar.
The battle lines with the "special counsel" Mueller are being more clearly drawn, as
McCabe is quoted in the article as saying--
"This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me
personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more
generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the
Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign
only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work."
The situation creates the classic case of McCabe as a "disgruntled former employee".
Everybody knows what that means....
I remember well Powell's performance at the UN with CIA director literally backing him up. I
knew he was lying, it was clear to anyone who bothered to read Knight Ridder.
Wilkerson's role was never clear to me, but I accept your evaluation.
If the Boss surrounds himself with sycophants, were are told what to expect:
Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state,
and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those
things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon
everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With
these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way
that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be
preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and
be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers,
or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.
Come on, all you people. This has been the most entertaining soap opera in Washington since
Bill Clintons zipper trouble. There has not been any real damage to the country (and maybe a
few benefits) and may not be in the future.
Pat, us Democrats are not bad people, we just have shitty leaders and no vision, but in
that regard, the Republicans are catching up.
McCabe is brutally fired a day short of his 20 years, Sessions is humiliated on a daily
basis, Tillerson was shafted everytime he went overseas trying to fix Trump's mistakes. Now,
how many in the Trump administration and in government are going to 'work for the president'
as opposed to 'working for themselves'.
Fear is not the tool of the effective manager.
There may be plenty of irony, but that does not make it implausible. We have witnessed a
progression of lamer and lamer ducks in this administration. Why not just use a video
substitute and let Fox News take over White House operations?
The firing of McCabe shows how petty Trump is and his lack of a moral code. It is true
that not all Republicans are bad. My wife, until recently, was one all her adult life.
I went to my monthly science lecture last evening, conducted by a neighbor, and he will
rejoin the federal government this fall as a Senior Science Advisor.( He spent 30 years
before retirement in that capacity) I would wish that more people as capable as he is would
help run the country, regardless of the dumb people that get elected.
The good news about the dismal current condition is that standards may be raised in the
future in an effort to make this just an educational interlude.
Wilkerson told me (through a mutual friend) well be fore the UN debacle that he and Powell
had the situation under control and that I should shut up. It was also Wilkerson who
persuaded Powell not to take any intel analysts to CIA when they went to be briefed by Tenet
and company. why did he do that? Hey! Why would such semi-divine beings as he and Powell need
expert help? pl
I am no big fan of Pelosi but she has been a very effective leader as this Atlantic article
states. Just one example, she very effectively stopped Bush junior's Social Security
privatization plan.
Ah, but firing him days before his pension vested is beautiful. Too vengeful? I think not;
it's exactly what he deserved. Why let a DB like that glean the rewards of double or even
triple dipping?
So Wilkerson had/has no conscience. WH Favors? How shallow can a person be? WH Favors? Blink,
blink? Why Powell didn't slap the dog shit out of Wilkerson I'll never understand.
Back to Mattis, what was he waiting for (saying he needed more 'intel' for extraction of
the wounded/dying?), a note sent through Fedex or UPS? To leave men to die in the field the
way Mattis did. Arghhh.
I also have not seen anywhere where Mattis experienced combat except from a 'comfortable'
position. That explains a lot why Mattis seems to be so gung ho on getting U.S. into another
unnecessary war.
Former/Retired CIA Director John O. Brennan says, "When the full extent of your venality,
moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as
a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will
not destroy America...America will triumph over you." https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/974978856997224448
Spare me the adjectives......he'fired. And if, significant if, he is guilty of what the
published reports say is, if that is confirmed by an independent inspector general's report,
and the text of that report matters here, then to hell with him he deserves to be fired.
If Sessions had not (wrongly, it turns out) recused himself and cleaned out the DOJ (as
expected) Trump would not have been riding him.
If Tillerson had followed Trump's direction on Iran, he probably would still be in his
job.
As for McCabe, that's life in the fast lane.
He was too clever by half and got in over his head.
If anything, this whole McCabe/Strozk/Page and whoever else attempt at "plotting" shows the
incompetence of these pinheads.
If Strozk was the FBI's top CI guy (texting like a teenage girl), no wonder the Chinese and
Russians are running wild.
But to truly drain the swamp Trump has to get rid of hundreds, maybe thousands, more of the
self-enriching parasite class.
For years Wilkerson spent great effort providing Colin Powell 'cover' on the allegations
that he was in the loop on all the 'enhanced interrogation tactics' (torture), while Powell
himself was quiet on the issue. And when CP was pushed he was vague e.g. stating that he
didn't have "sufficient memory recall" about the meetings referenced; that he had
participated in " many meetings on how to deal with detainees "; and that he was not "aware
of anything that we discussed in any of those meetings that was not considered legal "
Of course it later came out that he was at the meetings, knew exactly what was going on,
but said nothing. The bottom line? Wilkerson lied and lied...
Well, if all the reports of her liquor bills for supplying the plane on tax-paid trips back
and forth to California when she was speaker of the House are true, she IS a drunk. And on
top of that I worry that all the Botox is now really affecting her brain.
She and Hillary really give being a woman something to cringe about. I, as a woman, would
like her better if she joined the transgender movement so as to prove they aren't just voting
as their husbands tell them to.
Brennan, Comey, Clapper; McCabe, Strzok, Page and others unknown politicized the Intelligence
community through incompetence and malfeasance and left it a smoking wreck. They are
delusional if they think that their contemptible bit of work has not been recognized for what
it is by both active and retired members of that community.
It has almost nothing to do with Trump. John Brennan is an ass. In fact Trump's flailing
around and leadership by tweet has only delayed the day of reckoning for the FBI with the CIA
hiding in the tall grass and still unscathed. Lay that on Trump and Pompeo. Wray, a Trump
appointment...wait, who is Wray and where is he?
I would call Trump's swamp draining efforts thus far a piss poor job and his FP efforts have
been plagued by piss poor appointments and piss poor performance. He himself is more in the
swamp than out of it and a Bolton appointment would put him in it over his ears.
Trump right now has one thing going for him: he's not Clinton; and that advantage is rapidly
disappearing. He either stops behaving like a NY real estate lout with a pinky ring or he's
going to blow himself and who knows what else to kingdom come.
I despise the leftists that are attempting to take control of the country and, to the extent
that the Democrat party has aligned with them (a large extent), I despise them too. Tucker
Carlson is doing a fantastic job countering the left and I guess Hannity plays an important
role in keeping anti-lefty outrage at the boiling point. We need people like him to keep
morale high for the foot soldiers in the culture war. He isn't supposed to be a source of
input for the generals.
That said, at a personal level, Hannity is, to me, an ignorant blow hard and he gives me a
headache every time I listen to him for more than a minute or two. That is what politics in
the USA has come down to; escalating rhetoric and counter rhetoric. If one side became more
circumspect then the other side would drown them out with wild rants. So they all rant on
with increasing fury. That is Hannity's role in all of this.
People here defending McCabe need to have their heads and moral compasses examined. I see
how it goes. No one in DC can ever be punished for breaking the law because one of the
parties will declare it to be politically motivated and 50% of the country (+/-) will buy
into that narrative. I have seen several comments by former FBI stating that McCabe got what
he deserved.
There are other ways to interpret the departure of McMaster (if it's real). The Boss and
the section chief have some differences of opinion or style, but they aren't hostile to each
other at a fundamental level. The section chief agrees to depart amicably and goes to work in
a different area to which he carries and propagates the vision of the Boss. Post departure,
the Boss and Chief maintain communications. I've seen this happen in private sector
companies. I think this approach is unsettling to those with traditional views of how a
bureaucratic career works.
Thank you Colonel. Your most recent short hand about POTUS being a boss, and being so
absolutely, mixes well with the previous and pithy, 'that the deal is everything, and there
are no fouls in service to achieving that everything.'
It would be interesting to learn how that classic boss=god top down approach mixes with
the military approach of the various 21st century generals who have come into the
administration. There are a number of different and basic top down approaches in the private
sector.
Isn't retired Army General 'Jerry' Boykins available?
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over
you."
My. my so Totsky of him.
If Evil Tzar Vladimir IV is selected again on Sunday, the Cruelly Clueless Crew better
hope and pray he doesn't drop the Doomsday Dime or when "America" sees what they were a part
of on July 17th 2014, well, "...America will triumph over you" will become a prophetic
fulfillment.
Why are you quoting the words of a Traitor named John Brennan? He committed 'Sedition'
against a duly elected/sworn in POTUS called Trump. Sedition is under the 'Treason' Statute
which upon conviction is punishable by death, and there is no statute of time limitations.
What Brennan did, he can be incarcerated for up until his dying day! Brennan hung himself
with his own rope, and he's too narcissistic arrogant to realize it.
On another note it appears that the Trump dossier was created, financed, and orchestrated
by MI6, which is (if I'm not mistaken) a U.K. 'Governmental Agency', which by defination the
British Government actively conspired to overthrown a sitting U.S. President.
So.....do we now get to squash MI6 for the arrogant gnat they really are?
May owes Trump an formal official apology for MI6's actions of war.
There are rumors that the double agent GRU Colonel Skripal was offering the Russian
Government to turn states evidence against MI6 and provide the Russian Government with all
the 'stuff' about the MI6 created Trump Dossier in return for his being able to return to
Russia to see his daughter married.
All signs point to Skripal's poisoning was orchestrated and performed by the British
Government (spelled MI6/MI5) to hide the fact that the Trump Dossier was created by the
British Government (spelled MI6) to overthrow a sitting U.S. President.
The Russian Government had already convicted/incarcerated/realeased Skripal of Treason,
they would have had nothing to gain by poisoning British MI6 Asset double agent GRU Colonel
Skripal.
My bad, not only does British PM May owe U.S. President Trump a formal apology for the
British Government's (spelled MI6) attempted overthrow of a sitting U.S. President with their
Trump Dossier, but also the Queen of England Queen Elizabeth herself and British King
Apparent Prince William himself, as May acts as their formal agent. The sitting Queen/King of
England rules England, not the PM as the PM are nothing more than their face persona
agents.
The fellow at Conservative Treehouse described the Mattis/Trump row (several days before it
blew over) as a "Black Hat Hunting" exercise. Trump and Mattis put out the row story in a
compartmentalized fashion in order to barium meal the leaker in the NSC. Sounds plausible.
I really thought that Andrew McCabe would be allowed to retire and disappear into
obscurity. Instead Jeff Session just took a shot at the FBI, Five Eyes intelligence community
and the Media Mogul coup plotters. All Clinton, Bush and Obama appointees and supporters must
go to the ground. The federal government will seize up. Anyone who thinks their future is at
risk has a reason to assist invoking the 25th Amendment. The Trump Family will fight back.
This is the start of an oligarch mob war fought by Deplorables against the ruling
credentialed Consiglieres.
Meanwhile, even the NewsHour reports on the threat of a new Hezbollah-Israel conflict
which will inevitably escalate into a shooting war with Iran and then draw in nuclear armed
Russia.
Ah if only the USA were Florence in the 1400's.
While many have read and excoriated the Prince, few have studied the sources from whence that
little handbook was drawn.
Enjoy: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy
In my own little library is one of his lesser works:'
https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0226500403/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1521313961&sr=8-12&keywords=machiavelli+war
Given the evidence of his career, it is obvious that Pres. Trump is well versed in the art of
manipulating sycophants. Rich men attract parasites like magnets attract iron filings. Since
Pres. Trump was still rich when he won the presidency after 40+ years being a sycophant
magnet, I think he is able to fluster them now as he has for decades. It is also obvious over
his career that he picks good people for the job he wants done and when it is done he moves
on to the next job and the next batch of appropriate people.
Granted this is not the norm for politicians, but it is for builders. You don't use the
foundation or utilities contractor for the stucco work nor the stucco contractor for the
interior decoration work. These things should be obvious but the talking heads insist on
trying to put Pres. Trump into a politician pigeonhole. He doesn't because he isn't.
It is enjoyable that the talking heads still insist on taking his every word literally while
simultaneously refusing to allow that he is a serious man with an excellent control of
language and nuance when it serves him.
"Provocation will be used as pretext by #US & allies to launch strikes on military and
govt infrastructures in #Syria, we are registering the signs of the preparations. Strike
groups of the cruise missile carriers been formed in Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Red Sea" -
@mod_russia
You mean Black and Hispanic unemployment were great under Barack? Why oh why did those
voters abandon the democratic candidate. I'm sure the Russians make African American's stay
home on election day. Hilary 2020!
''These things should be obvious but the talking heads insist on trying to put Pres. Trump
into a politician pigeonhole''
Well he's sort of like a political pigeon playing chess...he struts onto the board, knocks
over all the pieces, sh-ts on the board and declares himself the winner.
But the game continues.
Trump says Mueller better not cross his red line and get into his business.
So Mueller crosses Trump's red line:
2 days ago - WASHINGTON -- The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has subpoenaed the
Trump Organization business records in recent weeks to turn over documents, including some
related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter. The order is the first
known instance of the special counsel demanding records ....
So yesterday Trump's attorney says :
''"I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous
example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions
and bring an end to alleged Russia collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe's boss
James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt dossier,"
I think we are all past the "there is no difference between the parties" rhetoric. There IS a
difference...and the consistent damage across the board being done by the GOP. I have no
doubt...and, as a historian, NO doubt...that the Democrats can screw up just as badly. They
do, however, come from a very different place---and it has the virtue of being much more
protective of the people and land of the USA.
I know we come from different life experiences, Pat, but our country is seriously at risk
and it will be the differences between the parties that will count from here on out until
that day when we can all start pulling in the same direction.
There is a certain amount of demographic inevitability going on here. All to the good for
some of the marginalized Americans. I don't think Trump (or anyone) can really claim
credit....although I do find Trump being factually correct about something, quite refreshing.
Remember---"coincidence is not causation."
"... Chris Williamson, the Labour MP for Derby North, said Labour MPs who had decided Moscow was "unequivocally" to blame were "baying for blood" and he suggested they face de-selection. ..."
But a key ally of Jeremy Corbyn has suggested moderate Labour MPs who blame Russia for spy
poisoning are "enemies" who should be deselected.
Chris Williamson, the Labour MP for Derby
North, said Labour MPs who had decided Moscow was "unequivocally" to blame were "baying for
blood" and he suggested they face de-selection.
And the Kremlin also ramped up its language, launching a withering response to Defence
Secretary Gavin Williamson, who had suggested Russia should "go away and shut up".
Major-General Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman at Russia's defence ministry, accused Mr
Williamson of engaging in "market wench talk", adding that it reflected his "intellectual
impotency".
Sorry, I should have said: it's an interview of one of the Novichok scientists, Vladimir Uglev, done in 1993. He says that
the compounds were successfully synthesised and tested, and would be easy for others to produce as long as they had the technology.
He also makes some references to corruption and deceit in the Soviet military research system.
says "Organophosphate nerve agents (OPNAs) are some of the most widely used and proliferated chemical warfare agents. As evidenced
by recent events in Syria, these compounds remain a serious military and terrorist threat to human health because of their toxicity
and the ease with which they can be used, produced and stored.
The theoretical possibilities for nerve agents derived from the Schedule 1.A.1 and 1.A.3 core structures exceed 270000"
This article says "Russia's chemical weapons commander was a Mossad target"
Russia's stockpile being destroyed is a red herring. This is tiny amounts of nerve agent that anyone who can purchase the commonly
available ingredients can make – provided they have the technical knowhow – and that's a huge proviso. Russia invented these and
could do it. The Israelis could do it too.
May is surely being sincere – there's no reason to think otherwise. We come back to who wants to kill this Russian "traitor"
and b) the recently strangled person at the top of Russia's most wanted list. Russia having form for these things doesn't help
their denials
The Iranian paper is very interesting. Thye ran some lab syntheses of Novichok compounds using two separate precursors (presumably
the so-called 'safe binary agents') at low levels to minimise exposure. They say nothing about the effectiveness of combining
the two compounds in the variable conditions of pressure, humidity and temperature in a non-lab environment.
One of the so-called 'safe' binary components they utilised is methylphosphonic difluoride. This is used in other binary cw
weapons (eg M687 artillery shell) to produce sarin or soran. Rather than being safe in the common sense, it is described as reactive
and corrosive (not surprising given it contains fluorine). It may cause burns, is rapidly absorbed through the skin and may cause
symptoms of mild nerve agent exposure. It strikes me that rather than going through the rigamarole of relying on exposure untested
uncontrolled binary agents, exposure to methylphosphonic difluoride may be sufficient. It is also a standard cw component so it
could be produced almost anywhere with suitable lab facilities.
Further reading reveals more details. It is not simply a malter of combining to two 'safe' precursor copmpounds and bingo!
– lots of nasty cw nerve agent. They are mixed together in the presence of a third chemical to produce an intermediate compound
which is then converted to the desired nerve agent by the presence of 'alcohols'. This is certainly a long way from the Clown
Car comedy description of how these things are supposed to work. This also suggests that whatever was used to poison the people,
it was almost certainly not a nerve agent derived from novichok compounds released haphazardly in the house, restaurant, etc.
Craig, you must read the paper the article cites. Relevant quotes are:
"All the chemicals required for the microsynthesis of O-alkylN-[bis(dimethylamino)methylidene]-P-methylphosphonami-dates were
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO,USA), Fluka (Neu-Ulm, Germany), and Merck (Darmstadt,Germany), and were used as received.
Methylphosphonicdifluoride (Scheme 1, cpd 1) was synthesized by use of amethod described elsewhere.[18]Isopropanol-d6was preparedby
reduction of acetone-d6by sodium borohydride."
Interpretation: trivial to obtain ingredients. Next we have the preparation itself. After some simple moves you can make with
standard benchtop equipment we have the following line about safety:
"It should be noted that, due to the extreme toxicityof these materials, the separation and purification of CWC-related
chemical are very difficult and thereforeshould be carried out only by a trained professional in an efficient fume cupboard equipped
with an active charcoal filtration system."
So all you need is a slightly better than standard fume cupboard!
Not just another country, any fucking polytechnic can make this stuff in small quantities.
"... I am aware however of many provocations carried out by NATO close to and even within Russian borders. The U.K. seems to be teeming with Yeltsin-era plutocrats such as Bill Browder who have been sustaining a drumbeat of 'emnity' towards Putin and the Russians for the last five years at least and no doubt have been applying their ill-gotten largesse to U.K. politicians. ..."
"... FSB/GRU or whoever, they do have a track record. It just isn't _this_ track record. The MO has changed radically, from precise, targeted and fairly discreet, to a vast mess of colateral damage without even a fatality to show for it, despite the claim that they used the most lethal poison in the world. ..."
"... Still no apparent motive, no obvious benefit for mother Russia, and no clear identification of the agent, much less its source. ..."
"... Compared to this, evidence for Iraqi WMD was rock solid. But by all means, let's thunder away with outraged self-righteousness on the world stage. ..."
"... The Novichok agent is produced in other country's than in Soviet Union, they have at least acknowledged it. They Novichok agent today at Totalförsvarets forskningsinstituts, in Sweden! ..."
"... "Every time the west notices Russia's wanting to be a "good neighbor" – about which the west really couldn't care less, Russia makes herself more vulnerable, more prone to be accused and attacked and more slandered." ..."
"... Great reporting Craig and a devastating indictment of UK journalism. So why are May, Johnson and Williamson spouting misleading claims? ..."
"... I cannot believe the tories are daft enough to want war with Russia but I do think they want to divert the funds that could be used to mitigate austerity straight into our arms industry and dwindling military. Williamson has been on that track for the last few months. ..."
"... Of course Corbyn has had some success with voters and whipping up anti-Russia hysteria and using it to blacken Corbyn with the electorate is a handy bonus. "Standing up to Putin" is depicted as playing well for May in the media, another bonus. ..."
"... Will it fizzle out now the Russians have done their tit for tat expulsions? Is a chemical weapons false flag about to happen in Syria to justify more coalition bombing? Who knows? ..."
" a track record of emnity" Care to expand on this? I am unaware of any emnity towards the
UK on the part of the Russian Federation in recent years.
I am aware however of many
provocations carried out by NATO close to and even within Russian borders. The U.K. seems to
be teeming with Yeltsin-era plutocrats such as Bill Browder who have been sustaining a
drumbeat of 'emnity' towards Putin and the Russians for the last five years at least and no
doubt have been applying their ill-gotten largesse to U.K. politicians.
Educate me. Perhaps I haven't been watching the right television.
BTW Did Israel have a motive to destabilise the U.S. when they attacked the U.S.S.
Liberty?
FSB/GRU or whoever, they do have a track record. It just isn't _this_ track record. The MO
has changed radically, from precise, targeted and fairly discreet, to a vast mess of
colateral damage without even a fatality to show for it, despite the claim that they used the
most lethal poison in the world.
Still no apparent motive, no obvious benefit for mother
Russia, and no clear identification of the agent, much less its source.
Compared to this,
evidence for Iraqi WMD was rock solid. But by all means, let's thunder away with outraged
self-righteousness on the world stage. Good reviews and trebles all around, eh?
The Novichok agent is produced in other country's than in Soviet Union, they have at least
acknowledged it.
They Novichok agent today at Totalförsvarets forskningsinstituts, in Sweden!
"Det är inte möjligt att Sverige är källan till nervgiftet Novitjok
som användes mot den tidigare ryske dubbelagenten Sergej Skripal och hans dotter,
säger kemvapenexperten Rikard Norlin till DN.
Anledningen är att nervgift endast finns på Totalförsvarets
forskningsinstituts avdelning för CBRN-skydd i Umeå.
– Vi har bra koll på våra substanser och redovisar allt till OPCW,
organisationen för förbud mot kemiska vapen, säger Norlin till tidningen."
"Every time the west notices Russia's wanting to be a "good neighbor" – about which
the west really couldn't care less, Russia makes herself more vulnerable, more prone to be
accused and attacked and more slandered."
Great reporting Craig and a devastating indictment of UK journalism. So why are May,
Johnson and Williamson spouting misleading claims?
I cannot believe the tories are daft enough to want war with Russia but I do think they
want to divert the funds that could be used to mitigate austerity straight into our arms
industry and dwindling military. Williamson has been on that track for the last few months.
£48 mill for Porton Down for agreeing to weasel words is just for starters. Cheap
compared to £1 bill for the DUP. Of course Corbyn has had some success with voters and
whipping up anti-Russia hysteria and using it to blacken Corbyn with the electorate is a
handy bonus. "Standing up to Putin" is depicted as playing well for May in the media, another
bonus.
Will it fizzle out now the Russians have done their tit for tat expulsions? Is a
chemical weapons false flag about to happen in Syria to justify more coalition bombing? Who
knows?
Once Putin's 1 March speech sinks in all we'll be left with by the Autumn is a clamour
that Britain must spend more on defence. Or give up Brexit and join the EU military?
Posted by: the pessimist | Mar 16, 2018 2:03:28 PM |
21
Very reminiscent of the MH17 campaign that was used to bully the reluctant Europeans into
imposing sanctions on Russia. Accusations were made and a narrative put forward immediately
without presenting clear evidence or waiting for an investigation. Through repetition this
narrative has become dogma in the West despite the fact that supporting evidence has still not
been forthcoming. It seems that after 9-11 it became clear that quickly putting out a
narrative, with the support of the press, and demonizing anyone with any public stature who
questions the basic story could be successful, even when there were thousands of eye witnesses
and many flaws in the official explanation. The facts, or what really happened no longer matter
once the narrative has taken root.
My question is what kinds of threats are being used to keep potential dissenters in line
now. French banks were punished over the mistrial deal and it was abandoned. Now the stakes
seem to be higher and the risk of defections has increased, so what is the stick?
"... The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who visited the site at Nukus, said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the UK placing blame on Russia. ..."
"... In a blog post , he wrote: "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." ..."
"... The UK government case rests not just on its argument that novichok was developed in Russia, but what it says is past form, a record of Russian state-sponsored assassination of former spies. ..."
"... Murray, in a phone interview, is undeterred, determined to challenge the government line, in spite of having been subjected to a level of abuse on social media he had not experienced before. ..."
"... "There is no evidence it was Russia. I am not ruling out that it could be Russia, though I don't see the motive. I want to see where the evidence lies," Murray said. "Anyone who expresses scepticism is seen as an enemy of the state." ..."
The question now is whether all of Russia's chemical weapons were
destroyed and accounted for. Theresa May – having identified the nerve agent used in the
Salisbury attack as novichok, developed in Russia – told the Commons on Wednesday that
Russia had offered no
explanation as to why it had "an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of
international law". Jeremy Corbyn introduced a sceptical note, questioning whether there was
any evidence as to the location of its production.
The exchanges provoked a debate echoing the one that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq over
whether UN weapons inspectors had overseen the destruction of all the weapons of mass
destruction in the country or whether Saddam Hussein had retained secret hidden caches.
On social media, there were arguments that the novichok could have come from some part of
the former Soviet Union other than Russia, such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan or Ukraine, or some
non-state group, maybe criminals.
The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall were chaotic, with chemical weapons
laboratories and storage sites across the Soviet Union abandoned by staff who were no longer
being paid. Security was almost non-existent, leaving the sites at the mercy of criminal gangs
or disenchanted staff looking to supplement their income.
"Could somebody have smuggled something out?" Amy Smithson, a US-based biological and
chemical weapons expert, said to Reuters. "I certainly wouldn't rule that possibility out,
especially a small amount and particularly in view of how lax the security was at Russian
chemical facilities in the early 1990s."
It took almost a decade before order was restored, in part through stockpiles being
transferred to Russia from other parts of the former Soviet Union and in part through help from
US and other western experts.
Novichok was developed at a laboratory complex in
Shikhany, in central Russia, according to a British weapons expert, Hamish de
Bretton-Gordon, and a Russian chemist involved in the chemical weapons programme, Vil
Mirzayanov, who later defected to the US. Mirzayanov said the novichok was tested at Nukus, in
Uzbekistan.
The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who visited the site at Nukus,
said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the UK
placing blame on Russia.
In a blog post , he wrote:
"The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'novichok'
nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil."
A Russian lawyer, Boris Kuznetsov, told Reuters he was offering to pass to the British
authorities a file he said might be relevant to the Salisbury case. It details an incident when
poison hidden in a phone receiver killed a Russian banker and his secretary in 1995. The poison
came from an employee at the state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries –
in an ampule placed in a presentation case – to help reduce his debts.
The UK government case rests not just on its argument that novichok was developed in Russia,
but what it says is past form, a record of Russian state-sponsored assassination of former
spies.
Murray, in a phone interview, is undeterred, determined to challenge the government line, in
spite of having been subjected to a level of abuse on social media he had not experienced
before.
"There is no evidence it was Russia. I am not ruling out that it could be Russia, though I
don't see the motive. I want to see where the evidence lies," Murray said. "Anyone who
expresses scepticism is seen as an enemy of the state."
In the nature of the internet, someone somewhere knows the truth but usually search
engines and governments make sure you don't find it. Ever.
But occasionally the internet gods smile. If you are obsessed with electric bicycles, long
time UK Pedelecs poster flecc knows all about Polonium 210 and why the Litvinenko 'Russia did
it' story was a pack of lies. – Polonium 210 is _not_ just available in Russia. It is
and was commercially available from the U.S.
– Fancy that department! Why the UK government 'Russia did it' Litvinenko story was
a pack of lies, by flecc, today (17/3/18) at 1:48 PM post #28622 – Pedelecs UK
–
How amusing that when someone tries that 'murder a Russian dissident and blame Russia'
wheeze one time too often, the truth falls out of the cupboard in spades! Combine that with
the lies about the apparent false flag Skripal attack –
Thanks b for your continued heavy lifting. Btw, other serious journalists are now citing your
diligence on this plot.
Yes, I 'm in on the dots to the Steele dossier "likely" that Skripal was very helpful and
must be silenced; his daughter too since he may have confessed to his part.
Falling apart it is. How was The Mirror, (UK), allowed to publish this article?
Before it is pulled, take a read. Below are just snips.
The Dark Secrets of Porton Down: Inside controversial defence lab which developed VX
nerve agent and used human 'guinea pigs' More than 20,000 people have been tested on at the top secret lab which is concentrating
on gas attack defences LINK
It is one of Britain's most secretive sites, remaining shrouded in mystery for more than
100 years. [.]
The 7,000 acre site, near Salisbury, is one of the UK's most secretive and controversial
military research facilities and the oldest chemical warfare research installations in the
world.
Scientists from Porton were among the first to create biological weapons as well as one
of the world's most lethal chemical weapons, but now its main purpose is to support the
military and help combat terrorism.
Porton Down opened in 1916 as the War Department Experimental Station for testing
chemical weapons during WW1.
Scientists at the lab researched and developed weapons agents used by the British
military during the war such as chlorine, mustard gas and phosgene.[.]
The base was later named the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment.
Chemical weapons were tested on site. Scientists built cannisters full of poison gas that
could be released by a timer and they also filled shells with it and released them at
targets.
But many of the shells failed to explode meaning the fields are still full of the active
chemical agents.
Now Porton concentrates on devising defensive measures against gas attacks after its
chemical and biological weapons programme was closed down in the 1950s.
On the government's website it says: "To help develop effective medical countermeasures
and to test systems, we produce very small quantities of chemical and biological
agents.
"They are stored securely and disposed of safely."[.]
Human experiments
Since 1916 more than 20,000 people have taken part in studies at the base.
Porton Down's experiments on humans have been widely criticised as it is alleged some human
'guinea pigs' were duped into taking part in tests.
Tests were carried out on servicemen to try and determine the effects of nerve agents on
humans - with one recorded death due to a nerve gas experiment.
Leading Aircraftman Ronald Maddison died aged 20 in 1953 after taking part in sarin nerve
agent toxicity tests.
.[.]
Viruses
Initial samples of the Ebola virus were sent to the Porton Down lab in 1976.
The lab now allegedly contains samples of some of the world's most aggressive diseases
including Ebola, anthrax and the plague.[.]
Aerial release trials
Between 1953 and 1976 a number of aerial release trials were carried out to help the
government understand how a biological attack might spread across the UK.
The government said: "Given the international situation at the time these trials were
conducted in secret."
And added: "The information obtained from these trials has been and still is vital to
the defence of the UK."
Two separate and independent reviews concluded the trials did not have any adverse
health effects on the UK population.[.]
Aliens
There has been speculation over the years that alien bodies could be hidden at the
sight.
But the government has said: "No aliens, either alive or dead have ever been taken to
Porton Down or any other Defence Science and Technology Laboratory site."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was not worried by
international expressions of support for the UK and challenged Britain to "provide some
confirmation".
He said: "Sooner or later, the British will have to show some proof to those 'colleagues'
who say they are with UK on this; sooner or later will have to stand up its accusations."
The Russian foreign ministry has called Mrs May's allegations "insane" and the Russian
Embassy in Britain has described the order for diplomats to leave as "unacceptable, unjustified
and short-sighted".
In response to the UK's sanctions, Russia's foreign ministry announced it would:
Expel 23 British diplomats - who have been given one week to leave Moscow
Close the British Consulate in St Petersburg
End the activities of the British Council, which promotes cultural ties between the UK
and Russia and language learning
It said it was responding to "provocative actions" by Britain - and "unproven accusations"
that the Russian state was behind the poisoning.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said the UK is "playing politics" and not taking into
account an international pact on chemical weapons.
He said if the UK sends Moscow a formal request for an explanation under the Chemical
Weapons Convention, Russia will respond within the set 10-day time limit.
Russia has also requested to be given a sample of the nerve agent used.
The Russian Ministry of Defence has called the UK's Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson a
"vulgar old harpy" after he said Russia should "go away and shut up".
Major-General Igor Konashenkov said that "the extreme level of the intellectual impotence"
of Mr Williamson confirmed London's accusations amounted to nothing.
"Long ago, Great Britain became the cosy nest not just for the world's turncoats, but also
of all kinds of headquarters for producing fake scandals," he added.
Meanwhile, a suspect in the 2006 murder of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko has told
Russian news agency Interfax that determining responsibility has to be done by "serious expert
analysis".
Andrei Lugovoi, who is now a
Russian MP, said: "Any chemist or physicist will tell you that in order to determine the
involvement or non-involvement of a country, there must at least be some serious expert
analyses carried out at a serious expert level.
"When such statements are made within a few days (of the incident), the only thing this
shows is the irresponsibility of the person who makes them. It may also indicate that to find
the truth is not the aim."
History lesson time! Here's how WW2 started . I do not mean the background causes or
the more proximal Soviet-German and British-Polish pacts. I mean the trigger .
The trigger was a number of false flag attacks carried out by German forces wearing
Polish uniforms , collectively given the name "Operation Himmler". The best known incident
occurred at Gleiwitz , just inside the German border,
where "Polish" (but really German) forces attacked a German radio station on the night of 31
August 1939. The German forces murdered a German farmer, dressed him as a saboteur, and
deposited his body at the scene as if he had been killed during the assault. This attack, along
with alleged ethnic cleansing of German residents by the Polish authorities and a number of
other false-flag attacks carried out by the German SS (in which the bodies of concentration
camp prisoners were left behind), was used as "justification" for the German invasion of Poland
the next morning.
The murdered German farmer had previously been known, or so it is said, for sympathising
with Poles, and he was killed by injection with a chemical.
"... "a robust dialogue with Russia on all the issues" ..."
"... And another question pops up. Why is the UK refusing to give Russia the samples of the deadly substanc e known as Novichok that it says was used to poison the former spy? Isn't it because the real poison was not Novichok but some other agent developed at Porton Down? Could be. You never know. This guess would at least explain the refusal. ..."
"... Nothing can be said for certain but it's only natural to look at what we know and make guesses. That's what analysts are for. Maybe this scenario wasn't what happened, but there is nothing to rule it out. ..."
"... After all, Mr. Skripal and his daughter got immediate emergency medical assistance. It arrived at once. Intelligence services? Who knows, but the victims were injected with an unknown substance almost immediately. Someone had known in advance that they'd need help. This is an undeniable fact. Another coincidence? Aren't there too many of them? ..."
"... Anyway, the work to determine exactly what substance poisoned Mr. Skripal and his daughter was done nowhere else but Porton Down. Wasn't it amazing how quickly they were able to say with absolute certainty that the nerve agent was Russian-produced Novichok? They are unbelievably talented people because normally that takes some time. ..."
"... The Russiagate scandal in the US appears to be dying down . The Skripal case, as well as the furor raised over the events in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, will breathe new life into the ongoing, well-orchestrated attacks on Moscow. ..."
Voices were heard calling for a detailed investigation before any final conclusions were
reached. Labor Leader Jeremy Corbyn
said the UK needed "a robust dialogue with Russia on all the issues" and warned
against cutting off ties. He came under harsh criticism in Parliament, although the only thing
Mr. Corbyn wanted was some evidence to go on before pointing the finger at Moscow. He just
wondered why the government had not made a formal request for information in accordance
with Article 9, clause 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)? He got an emotional
response, but nobody explained why the procedures described in the convention had not been
invoked.
And what if Mr. Skripal pulls through and offers quite a different story? What if new
witnesses appear whose testimony moves the investigation in a different direction?
The UK evidently does not want to go the whole nine yards to uncover the truth. It prefers
to make accusations first and launch a halfhearted investigation second.
There is a very important fact that has been almost completely ignored by the British media.
Where did the poisoning take place? Yes, we know, the name of that sleepy town is Salisbury.
That's where Mr. Skripal lives. On March 16, Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson
announced that the UK would spend 48 million pounds ($67 million) on a new chemical-warfare
defense center. It will be built at Porton
Down , a military research laboratory that has manufactured
the nerve agents VX and sarin.
Where do you think that lab is located? Right, less than eight miles from Mr. Skipal's home
in Salisbury. Vladimir Pasechnik , a senior Soviet
expert on biological warfare, who defected to the UK in 1989, worked there. He died in 2001.
Russia again? Not a chance. Where he lived was no secret and he had worked there quietly for so
many years. It's the research he did at the Porton Down laboratory that was kept under lock and
key. He quit the laboratory in 2000 to set up a business of his own. Since he was no longer
working for the government, he was in a position to reveal awkward information. You never know
about the people involved in hush-hush activities, and the timing of the events could be a
coincidence. But it might not be.
The UK officially ceased all activities associated with nerve gas development in 1989 but
scandalous stories about Porton Down have been leaked much
more recently. The people who worked in the facility were dying under the most suspicious circumstances.
In 2010, the Daily Mail
published a very interesting report about these mysterious deaths -- all related to the
development of nerve agents -- which was a fact that had been kept under wraps before. Porton
Down featured prominently in all those stories. Wouldn't this be a good time to remember those
in connection with Mr. Skripal's poisoning?
And another question pops up. Why is the UK refusing to give Russia the samples of the
deadly
substanc e known as Novichok that it says was used to poison the former spy? Isn't it
because the real poison was not Novichok but some other agent developed at Porton Down? Could
be. You never know. This guess would at least explain the refusal.
Nothing can be said for certain but it's only natural to look at what we know and make
guesses. That's what analysts are for. Maybe this scenario wasn't what happened, but there is
nothing to rule it out.
After all, Mr. Skripal and his daughter got immediate emergency medical assistance. It
arrived at once. Intelligence services? Who knows, but the victims were injected with an
unknown substance almost immediately. Someone had known in advance that they'd need help. This
is an undeniable fact. Another coincidence? Aren't there too many of them?
Anyway, the work to determine exactly what substance poisoned Mr. Skripal and his daughter
was done nowhere else but Porton Down. Wasn't it amazing how quickly they were able to say with
absolute certainty that the nerve agent was Russian-produced Novichok? They are unbelievably
talented people because normally that takes some time.
What next? The UK does not want to go it alone. It has raised the issue in the UN. It
has approached NATO.
The Skripal case will be added to the agenda at the March 22–23 EU summit and even the
talks on Brexit.
The Russiagate scandal in the US appears
to be dying down . The Skripal case, as well as the furor raised over the events
in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, will breathe new life into the ongoing, well-orchestrated attacks on
Moscow.
These days the divided West
faces many challenges . Just look at the divisions threatening NATO and the EU. There is
nothing better than an external enemy, even an imaginary one, to keep the West united and led
by the US. That's where Russia comes in. We may never know who is to blame for the attempt on
Mr. Skripal's life -- it's not important for those who are leading the anti-Russia campaign. No
opportunity to pour more fuel on the fire of anti-Russia sentiments should be passed up. The
British government seems up to the task.
Theresa May is like the Queen of Hearts in Alice-in-Wonderland: "Verdict first, trial
afterwards" Indeed, she goes further: "Sentence first and no trial" - not even evidence!
"... the most encouraging thing is the reaction of readers of the Daily Mail , i was reading only this morning the hatchet job they did on RT, its not one the readers agreed with incidentally, at the time i read the article over 700 people had responded, the best rated where from those totally against the MSM narrative, the best thing our establishment could do is listen to the people, unfortunately they won't, encased in their bubble environment of Westminster ..."
"... resistance, or a form of inoculation to MSM propaganda is growing, the elite establishment are now on the back foot, question is how will they respond ban RT, or this blog ??? .i suspect the gloves will come off very soon ..."
"... Given the total lack of proper investigation, Craig is one of the few making any sense. I would expect an event like this, if treated normally as a crime, to take months of investigation before anyone could be accused. ..."
"... I see no reason why we have to jump to accusing Russia and I'm glad that Craig, rather than delving into conspiracy theory, is simply confirming that we can't know without a lot more investigation ..."
"... Pants down, she swiftly places a bucket over her head, and expels 23 of her own diplomats from Russia. Then accidentally falls into the embrace of her arch-Brexit enemies Germany and France. Side-splitting comedy. Never had such a good laugh at the expense of the hapless Tories. ..."
"... With Christopher Steele, Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal in the UK script of the moment – the official deception is at a place of convergence. ..."
The line that novichoks can only be produced by Russia is now proven to be a complete lie.
As I previously proved by referencing their publications, in 2013 the OPCW scientific advisory
committee note the evidence was sparse that novichoks had ever been successfully produced, and
in 2016 that was still the line being published by Porton Down in 2016. You can find the hard
evidence of all that
here .
I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to
study whether novichoks really could be produced from commercially available ingredients.
Iran succeeded in synthesising a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation
with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the
chemical weapons database.
This case of unclear wording needs clearing up in a matter when little or no media
attention seems to be on the victims, the hospital etc. :
The Times published a letter from Stephen Davies (Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Salisbury
NHS Foundation Trust) on the 16th March. 'Sir, further to your report ('Poision Exposure Leaves Nearly 40 needing Treatment'), may
I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury
and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have
attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had
symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no
abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.'
That first sentence .carefully worded or carelessly worded?
May claimed that the nerve agent was Novichok, developed in the USSR. In order to identify
it, the UK experts had to have had a sample of it. Since neither the USSR, nor Russia, have
ever been known to export it, we should assume that it was synthesized within the UK. The
formula and the list of precursors are in the public domain, published by the scientist who
developed Novichok, who has since moved to the US. Thus, British scientists working at Porton
Down could have synthesized it themselves. In any case, it is not possible to determine in
what country a given sample of the substance was synthesized, and the claim that it came from
Russia is not provable.
It was claimed that the victims -- Mr. Skripal and his daugher -- were poisoned with
Novichok while at a restaurant. Yet how could this have been done? The agent in question is
so powerful that a liter of it released into the atmosphere over London would kill most of
its population. Breaking a vial of it open over a plate of food would kill the murderer along
with everyone inside the restaurant. Anything it touched would be stained yellow, and many of
those in the vicinity would have complained of a very unusual, acrid smell. Those poisoned
would be instantaneously paralyzed and dead within minutes, not strolling over to a park
bench where they were found. The entire town would have been evacuated, and the restaurant
would have to be encased in a concrete sarcophagus by workers in space suits and destroyed
with high heat. None of this has happened.
In view of the above, it seems unlikely that any of what has been described in the UK
media and by May's government has actually taken place. An alternative assumption, and one we
should be ready to fully test, is that all of this is a work of fiction. No pictures of the
two victims have been provided.
One of them -- Skripal's daughter -- is a citizen of the Russia
This was posted by RT there's more to the story just I have copied this part obviously to
get the truth out there
the most encouraging thing is the reaction of readers of the Daily Mail , i was reading
only this morning the hatchet job they did on RT, its not one the readers agreed with
incidentally, at the time i read the article over 700 people had responded, the best rated
where from those totally against the MSM narrative, the best thing our establishment could do
is listen to the people, unfortunately they won't, encased in their bubble environment of
Westminster
resistance, or a form of inoculation to MSM propaganda is growing, the elite establishment
are now on the back foot, question is how will they respond ban RT, or this blog ??? .i
suspect the gloves will come off very soon
No conspiracy theories here. Given the total lack of proper investigation, Craig is one of
the few making any sense. I would expect an event like this, if treated normally as a crime,
to take months of investigation before anyone could be accused.
I see no reason why we have
to jump to accusing Russia and I'm glad that Craig, rather than delving into conspiracy
theory, is simply confirming that we can't know without a lot more investigation
May must resign. She scripted the farce about Abu Qatada who was eventually deported to
Jordan, a country which hosts joint Saudi – Israeli terrorist training camps which were
used for training Daesh. The present farce about Salisbury stars the same cast of buffoon MPs
from both sides of the House, ra-ra-ing against Russia while USUKIS who started the proxy war
against Syria is hiding under the bed.
Pants down, she swiftly places a bucket over her head,
and expels 23 of her own diplomats from Russia. Then accidentally falls into the embrace of
her arch-Brexit enemies Germany and France. Side-splitting comedy. Never had such a good
laugh at the expense of the hapless Tories.
Here in North America we're witness to a campaign of propaganda that is of a DNA strand
with the Salisbury story.
In late 2016 a private outfit named CrowdStrike fabricated word of an "Ukrainian artillery
hack" by the GRU – this provided CrowdStrike and the US intell community the needed
"high confidence" re Russia being responsible for a DNC "hack" – and this (amplified by
recitation of CS agent Dmitri Alperovitch et al's false claims in the Washington Post etc.)
preceded Obama's sanctions against Russia.
It appears now as if neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will really want to reveal
all – and are moving to settle on "no collusion" but will avoid the "no hack" evidence
as the latter would harm the ongoing military desire to stoke a war, cold or hot, with
Russia.
With Christopher Steele, Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal in the UK script of the moment
– the official deception is at a place of convergence.
Thank you for helping dispel the smoke-and-mirrors.
"... The anti Russia propaganda industry I believe was geared up to mobilize on an expected East Ghouta gas attack. OK the "industry" would not be privy to the details of such a false flag. But could it be they have gone off prematurely by assuming this Salisbury "event" was the intended pretext. ..."
"... Certainly there appears a degree of pre planned organization in the response to this false provocation ..."
"... I'm a major fan of Prime Minister May. What arouses my suspicions here is the refusal to this point of Her Majesty's government to submit samples of the poison to independent 3rd-party analysis. ..."
"... I've NEVER been antiwar, but DO oppose no-exit, no-win wars. The British public has a great deal of historical experience with such conflicts. Could this affair be the prelude to yet another? ..."
This is what a false flag operation is about: you need to carefully plant impurities that
point to the desired target. Compare with Vault 7. Can it be a chemical Vault 7 available
somewhere?
The anti Russia propaganda industry I believe was geared up to mobilize on an expected
East Ghouta gas attack. OK the "industry" would not be privy to the details of such a false
flag. But could it be they have gone off prematurely by assuming this Salisbury "event" was
the intended pretext.
Certainly there appears a degree of pre planned organization in the response to this false
provocation
My chemistry background is laughable (B in high school, D in college) and the only "legal"
course I took was called Sociology of Law.
The Romans had the line "Cui bono?" The rough translation (10th grade Latin) is "Who
benefits?"
Russia's President Vladimir Putin is an honor graduate of the KGB's foreign branch. It
stands to reason he wouldn't hesitate to have an ex-spy assassinated if he thought it served
the Russian interest. But in this case, what is that interest?
I'm a major fan of Prime Minister May. What arouses my suspicions here is the refusal to
this point of Her Majesty's government to submit samples of the poison to independent
3rd-party analysis.
Due to nearsightedness, I never served in the U.S. Army; had I the common sense of a goat,
I would have served in the Navy Supply Corps. I've NEVER been antiwar, but DO oppose no-exit,
no-win wars. The British public has a great deal of historical experience with such
conflicts. Could this affair be the prelude to yet another? Thank you all.
"... You have obviously been at the crime scene, have witnessed the comatose bodies of the Skripals and after analyzing the Novitchok samples you meticulously collected, have reached the inescapable conclusion ..."
"... Nice sarcasm. Well deserved for those "Novichok hot heads", who claim that it is plausible that a military grade nerve gas was used. Actually initial reports were about a synthetic opioid, not any nerve gas ( https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-russian-agent-sergei-skripal-critical-condition-was-poisoned-by-fentanyl-1665286 ) ..."
"... I am amazed that people do not understand the level of absurdity of using nerve gas in such a case. It's really like ignorance has no boundaries. I understand that some people did not manage to graduate from a university or take a decent organic chemistry course, but still, this is simply amazing and very disturbing to read such posts. Especially here. ..."
You have obviously been at the crime scene, have witnessed the comatose bodies of the
Skripals and after analyzing the Novitchok samples you meticulously collected, have reached
the inescapable conclusion
I am amazed that people do not understand the level of absurdity of using nerve gas in
such a case. It's really like ignorance has no boundaries. I understand that some people did
not manage to graduate from a university or take a decent organic chemistry course, but
still, this is simply amazing and very disturbing to read such posts. Especially here.
If it was a nerve gas my question to "Novichok hot heads" here is who the assassin
was?
You need either to place a can or some punctured packet under the bench (probably
impossible) or spray the liquid on the victim from a short distance. The latter is a very
dangerous exercise if you are not wearing a respirator and protection gear.
Remember the place was under surveillance -- bad for any assassination. Also in lethal
concentrations, the gas kills the victims in several minutes. But Skripals survived
unattended for an hour or more and there was only one other seriously affected person -- a
policeman, while doctor who treated Skriplal's daughter on the bench was unaffected.
I do not see any reasonable way to administer the gas in this environment without
affecting many other people including any passerby, or the doctor who treated Skripal's
daughter
Yes, it certainly looks like a provocation, the "false flag" operation. The Brits and the Banks needed the US and the EU to join
the fight.
Notable quotes:
"... The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me). ..."
"... One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination) was accomplished. ..."
"... The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which means 100% chances of your detection. ..."
"... Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench. ..."
"... So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin ..."
"... suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. ..."
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia,
nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a
parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked (by a Russian sounding chemical weapon Novichok), and
denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk - Craig Murray has been most viciously attacked
for not accepting the official story without any evidence) and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Göring
That's a perfectly applicable variation of the famous quote.
The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and
EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits
to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me).
BTW exiled Russian oligarchs like Khodorkovski ( https://www.voltairenet.org/article168007.html
) also could easily stage such a false flag operation using their interconnections with both Russia and Israel.
One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination)
was accomplished.
The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some
substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which
means 100% chances of your detection.
Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components
and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious
is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench.
Unless it was the daughter who did this (in this case authorities have definitely all the necessary evidence of the crime committed)
chances of an attacker to survive such an attack are slim, and changes not being recorded on one or more camera are virtually
non existent.
If there was a human assassin, he/she risks to be immediately dead or severely injured as even in minimal concentrations such
a gas reliably kills a person within two minutes or so. Antidote might help to survive, but how effective it is depends on the
dose you can get.
If some robotic disperser was used, then it will be found as unlike in case of an explosive device the activation does no destroy
it.
Also unclear why target the daughter, unless we are dealing with some botched amateur false flag operation in best traditions
of ISIS Syria false flag operations.
Moreover, Skripals spent around an hour on a bench in a comatose state and were helped by a doctor who was not affected in
any way. See timeline at
So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin . There are some absurd statements that the poison was spiked
in their drinks either in the pub or at the restaurant:
Later their collapse was used to stage a false flag operation, when in fact there was no any gas involved, and at this point,
a grandiose propaganda show with the decontamination of the area started.
By Craig Murray, former British intelligence officer, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan,
and Rector (i.e. Chancellor) of the University of Dundee. Originally published at CraigMurray.org.uk .
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's only
chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an
extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was
scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents,
'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the
'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)
Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents.
Royal Society of Chemistry
Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance
which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its
existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin.
Given Dr Black's publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.
The world's international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black's opinion. The
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In
2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German
and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:
[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover
all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new
toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk
to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to "Novichoks". The name "Novichok" is used in a
publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve
agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient
information to comment on the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013)
OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for
the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013
Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of "novichoks" that it decided –
with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned
list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on "novichoks"
but doubts he succeeded.
Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of "Novichoks" is
dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that
sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to
OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW
that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.
Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.
Why?
A second part of May's accusation is that "Novichoks" could only be made in certain military
installations. But that is also demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were
allegedly designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial chemical facility
– that was a major point of them. The only real evidence for the existence of Novichoks
was the testimony of the ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually
wrote.
One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary
version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.
"At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming
there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this."
Notable quotes:
"... When Putin's cruising to an easy win and the only concern is whether the turnout is 60% or 70%, the claims he wants it for election purposes are pretty stupid, and become untenable when you consider the very real diplomatic, propaganda and soft power costs Russia will bear for this, and coming at a particularly bad time as well on several counts, with Syria on a knife edge in relation to (even more) open US military aggression, the NordStream II pipeline facing new attempts to block it, and the World Cup coming up. ..."
"... Frankly, if the idea of trying to murder someone in Britain, using a "wmd" in the most hysteria-inducing propaganda-favouring method possible, had been suggested to Putin by one of his security apparatchiks I suspect the man would have been guarding ice floes in the Arctic within a few hours. ..."
"... And that's not even considering that this individual (Skripal) wasn't a thuggish, troublemaking fugitive from Russian justice like Litvinenko, but rather a former spy who had already been unmasked, tried and imprisoned by the Russians (his offence was considered so serious he got a whole 13 years), and then exchanged after a few years inside. He was considered so endangered by British intelligence that they didn't even bother hiding his identity, and his address was in the public domain. ..."
"... At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this. ..."
"... And by the same exact token, there's no reason to get breathless about the idea that it could have been one of the parties who are real beneficiaries of this propaganda surge -- any of the countries currently engaged in confrontation of Russia in Syria and elsewhere, or that criminal elements connected to the Russian exile "mafia" types could have obtained it from a lab in, say, Ukraine, or that some of the shadowy US and UK security state contacts involved in the campaign to overturn the election of Trump might have used it as a twofer – to get rid of Skripal if he had information they wanted kept secret and set the pretext for the currently ongoing campaign against Russia. ..."
"... All a lot more plausible than the idea that the Russian government was stupid enough to do this to itself, gratuitously ..."
Scenarios for operations are written by somebody. Possibly the same people who also write
screenplays for TV and Hollywood. We know many writers who worked for intelligence services
(Flemming, Greene, LeCarre.) In Six Days of Condor they wanted to keep the scenario secret
and have it removed form popular circulation in a thriller books. But here is opposite
situation. The operation is basically a psy-op so it is public where you want to convince
people that something happened. I can see a point of injecting it as movie drama first so it
will become more believable when it eventually happens. But still the simplest explanation of
laziness and plagiarism can't be excluded.
Others have already explained why Purin and cronies might decide now was a good time to
kill a traitor and be accused of it.
Nobody has yet credibly done so. When Putin's cruising to an easy win and the only concern
is whether the turnout is 60% or 70%, the claims he wants it for election purposes are pretty
stupid, and become untenable when you consider the very real diplomatic, propaganda and soft
power costs Russia will bear for this, and coming at a particularly bad time as well on
several counts, with Syria on a knife edge in relation to (even more) open US military
aggression, the NordStream II pipeline facing new attempts to block it, and the World Cup
coming up.
Frankly, if the idea of trying to murder someone in Britain, using a "wmd" in the most
hysteria-inducing propaganda-favouring method possible, had been suggested to Putin by one of
his security apparatchiks I suspect the man would have been guarding ice floes in the Arctic
within a few hours.
And that's not even considering that this individual (Skripal) wasn't a thuggish,
troublemaking fugitive from Russian justice like Litvinenko, but rather a former spy who had
already been unmasked, tried and imprisoned by the Russians (his offence was considered so
serious he got a whole 13 years), and then exchanged after a few years inside. He was
considered so endangered by British intelligence that they didn't even bother hiding his
identity, and his address was in the public domain.
At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming
there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this.
Do I think Russia is involved with the Skripal hit? Of course. .Because of the poison
involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it.
That's the poison that Porton Down declined to claim they could identify as having come
from Russia and were only prepared to say is "of a type developed by Russia"?
The poison that the main source for (a former Soviet dissident living in the US) put the
formulae for in his book published ten years ago, and who was quoted a few days ago as saying
that either Russia did it, or someone else who'd read his book?
Of course, exiled dissidents backing up the latest US propaganda campaign against their
former home's government is hardly anything new – that was one of the main methods by
which we were lied into the Iraq War. It's rather cutely naïve for one such to openly
admit that anybody else with the resources (such as the UK, the US or Israel, for a start,
and probably anybody else with access to state resources, such as Ukraine) could have
manufactured the supposedly incriminating substance over the past ten years.
So the idea that the particular chemical allegedly used is in the slightest evidence of
its origin is completely untenable. Nevertheless, that seems to be the only real piece of
"evidence" relied upon for the convenient rush to judgement by the usual suspects.
I just happen to be reading "Rise and Kill First" – the secret history of Israel's
targeted assassinations.
Roughly 700 pages of text and notes about one country's targeted killings so I'm really
not in a 'how could this be' frame of mind with regard to Russia.
Absolutely. And by the same exact token, there's no reason to get breathless about the
idea that it could have been one of the parties who are real beneficiaries of this propaganda
surge -- any of the countries currently engaged in confrontation of Russia in Syria and
elsewhere, or that criminal elements connected to the Russian exile "mafia" types could have
obtained it from a lab in, say, Ukraine, or that some of the shadowy US and UK security state
contacts involved in the campaign to overturn the election of Trump might have used it as a
twofer – to get rid of Skripal if he had information they wanted kept secret and set
the pretext for the currently ongoing campaign against Russia.
All a lot more plausible than the idea that the Russian government was stupid enough to do
this to itself, gratuitously.
"... As to boorish words of the British Defense Minister regarding Russia, it seems that in the absence of the real results of the professional activity, rudeness is the only weapon remaining in the arsenal of the Her Majesty's Military. ..."
Major General Igor Konashenkov of the Russia MoD replies
to the British Defense Secretary's comment that "Russia should shut up and go away":
"The rhetoric of an uncouth shrew demonstrated by the Head of the British Ministry of
Defense makes his utter intellectual impotence perfectly evident. All this confirms not only
the nullity of all accusations towards Russia we have been hearing from London for the last
several years but also that the "accusers" themselves are nonentities.
Great Britain has long turned not only into a cozy nest for defectors from all over the
world but also into a hub for all sorts of fake news-producing agencies: from the British
"Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" to the created by a British intelligence officer
pseudo-Syrian "White Helmets".
As to boorish words of the British Defense Minister regarding Russia, it seems that in the
absence of the real results of the professional activity, rudeness is the only weapon
remaining in the arsenal of the Her Majesty's Military."
Why Russian intelligence services should kill someone of no consequences in UK using some exotic, only in Russia made stuff, is
beyond comprehension. Btw, it is not even sure if Novichok was used at all because UK refuses to provide samples and formula is known
to many now.
The whole behavior of UK is of the guilty party and BBC coverage demonstrates that quite well. Most probably this is yet another
false flag operation by CIA/MI6 job rogue elements hell-bent of Russophobia.
Mr Nebenzya said Mr Skripal was a "perfect victim which could justify any unthinkable lie," and asked if the attack was "something
which benefits Russia on the eve of presidential elections and the world football championships?"
"I can think of a number of countries who would benefit from this incident and [from] blaming Russia," he said.
On state television and social media, Russian citizens and media commentators have espoused similar theories in starker terms.
Conspiracy theories implicating the UK and its allies in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been widely shared in order
- adherents claim without evidence - to attack Russia.
'They love poison in the UK'
A news bulletin on state Rossiya 1 TV accused Britain of masterminding the attack on the Skripals.
In a bizarre and unsubstantiated claim, the Rossiya 1 report referenced the plot of Sky TV series Strike Back in its allegations.
"They started preparing the UK public for the so-called Russian aggression with the use of a nerve paralytic agent at the end
of last year," a Rossiya 1 correspondent said.
"It is well known that the Strike Back series is funded and created with the direct involvement of the British special services,"
he added.
The television series is based on a book authored by former SAS soldier Chris Ryan published in 2007.
An interviewee on Rossiya 1 identified as a "former FSB [Federal Security Service] Major General" said "all this is a well-planned
provocation," adding "they love poison in the UK".
'Remarkable coincidence'
On Telegram and VKontakte, a Russian-language social network, similar allegations have circulated among pro-Kremlin channels.
Much speculation centred on videos of Mr Skripal's 2004 arrest that had been uploaded to YouTube in the days before the attack.
The timing of the uploads, little more than a week before the Skripals collapsed in Salisbury, led to accusations of British complicity.
Posting in Russian, one Twitter user calling themselves 'Uruguayan Intelligence' claimed
the YouTube channel
Group M was "moderated from Britain", an assertion also made on Russian state TV.
It is unclear if there is any evidence for the claim - Rossiya 1 made it citing "some information" - but despite one news presenter's
declaration the upload was "a remarkable coincidence," it is not immediately obvious what it is supposed to prove. In any case, reports
on Telegram suggest the decision to post the videos - and other footage of "successful detentions" - was made as long ago as 2017
for a "website for veterans".
Could Ukraine be involved?
Former FSB chief Nikolai Kovalyov, a Russian MP, suggested on Tuesday Ukraine could be involved. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine
have been high since Russia's annexation of the Crimea in 2014.
"Given that all this [nerve agent] was stored on the territory of the republics of the former Soviet Union," he said, "a Ukrainian
trace cannot be ruled out".
"The beneficiaries are England, America and indirectly Ukraine, because it is interested in showing Russia as an aggressor state."
There is no evidence suggesting Ukraine's involvement.
'Rhetoric from a vulgar woman'
The worsening of tensions between Russia and the UK has also been reflected in the language used by Russian officials.
After the British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said Russia should "go away and shut up", Russia's Defence Ministry spokesman
Igor Konashenkov described it as "the rhetoric of a vulgar woman from a bazaar".
"Perhaps he lacks education," suggested Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
"This is trash... can you imagine who we are dealing with?" said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Rossiya 1 TV
on 14 March in reference to British government officials.
"These people have no idea about professionalism, diplomacy, international law, any international organisations. Second, they
are simply liars. Real, fully-fledged liars."
Russia's ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, told Rossiya 24 TV on Friday that Moscow had not received the answers it needed
from Britain concerning the condition of Mr Skripal and his daughter and progress in the investigation.
"Unfortunately, the British often indulge in adopting such a colonial manner," he said.
bad faith and parochial bellicosity on the part of the all the major powers of the
time
Some of it sounds familiar, but not all. I was pointing out that there are major
differences between today and 1914, but it is extremely volatile and dangerous like then.
At least some in the West have made a decision to deal with Russia now before it gets
stronger. Or to create a much better 'defensive' perimeter for the future. Ukraine, Baltics
and probably Georgia, maybe Turkey have been lined up on Russia's border, with Nato bases and
soldiers. There was the failed attempt to push Russia out of its key Navy base in Crimea.
Syria war will go on to bleed and demoralise Russia, maybe in a few other places. Squeeze the
economy by financial isolation. Use media demonisation to create pressure on the Westernised
Russian elites.
Will that start a war like in 1914? That's where the differences come in. Russia cannot be
today described as ' bellicose ', and neither can large parts of the West. Only some
in the West are bellicose. Germany, Italy and to some extent France want to continue or even
increase business with Russia.
There is also no such thing as a traditional war between Russia and the West – it
would be over in 1-2 days (if that), basically a suicide. It could still happen, but we need
more events before we get there.
Earlier today
we reported that the world got that much closer to a second Cold War after Russia said it
would expel UK diplomats in retaliation to Theresa May's decision to kick out 23 Russians,
while expanding its "blacklist" of US citizens in response to yesterday's Treasury sanctions.
That's when things turned south fast because roughly at that time, the U.K.'s top diploma,
Boris Johnson, directly accused Vladimir Putin, saying it was " overwhelmingly likely " that he
personally ordered the nerve-agent attack on British soil.
In a dramatic escalation of a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, the Foreign
Secretary said the U.K.'s problem was not with the Russian people but with the Russian
leader.
"Our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin and with his decision - and we think it
overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision - to direct the use of a nerve agent on the
streets of the U.K., on the streets of Europe, for the first time since World War II,"
Johnson said in London.
Predictably, the Kremlin was furious, said that blaming Putin personally for Skripal's
poisoning is "shocking and unforgivable."
Speaking to Interfax, Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that "We have said on
different levels and occasions that Russia has nothing to do with this story" and added that
"any references to our president is nothing but shocking and unforgivable diplomatic
misconduct."
Johnson's statement was a "diplomatic blunder" on the part of the UK foreign secretary,
Peskov said, adding that the Kremlin remains "puzzled" by the conduct of the British
authorities during the Skripal crisis.
The diplomatic tension increased further Friday afternoon when London's Metropolitan Police
said it is treating as murder the death of Nikolai Glushkov, a close associate of Putin
opponent Boris Berezovsky -- a one-time billionaire who was himself found hanging dead in 2013
in his house outside London.
The Kremlin's press secretary also expressed belief that "sooner or later the British side
would have to present some kind of comprehensive evidence of Russia's involvement, at least, to
their partners France, the US, Germany, who declared solidarity with London in this situation."
Moscow earlier asked the UK to provide materials in the Skripal case, but received a negative
answer.
Johnson's claims of Putin's personal involvement weren't the only example of over-the-top
rhetoric by UK officials during the Skripal crisis. UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said
on Thursday that Russia "should go away and shut up" when asked about Moscow's possible
response to British sanctions.
In response, Russia's Defence Ministry said Williamson was an "intellectual impotent" and
Lavrov said he probably lacked education. "Well he's a nice man, I'm told, maybe he wants to
claim a place in history by making some bold statements," Lavrov said. "Theresa May's main
argument about Russia's guilt is 'Highly probable', while for him it's 'Russia should go and
shut up'. Maybe he lacks education, I don't know."
The False Flag nerve agent attack on Skripal and his daughter merely presents the
opportunity to distract the British people from the Brexit imperative.
The British government/Parliament has no desire to separate from the EU, and they have
nothing but contempt for the commoners, so they must call upon British intelligence services
to fabricate a False Flag terrorist attack against two Russian ex-pats who represent
absolutely no value to international espionage and attempt to kill them with poorly
engineered chemical weapons.
Then the international community conveniently blames Russia.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State.
Seems the Deep State is getting desperate. Obama interferes in the Brexit vote..Johnson is
interfering in the Russian vote. Bumper stickers back in the 60's.."What if they gave a war
and nobody came?" Unfortunately, nukes negate that question. We are all invited and going to
participate. Idiots are running the asylum. Duck and cover..ha!
During the latest debate between Russian presidential candidates, Zhirinovsky literally
erupted about Theresa May's absurd nerve gas psychodrama. Seriously, I've never seen so much
fire packed into a two-minute clip.
A couple of choice excerpts (but you really should watch):
"If they give us an ultimatum our Commander-in-Chief should deploy the Baltic Fleet to
the shores of Britain. They might respond, but Khrushchev once told the UK: 'A couple of my
missiles can eliminate your isles.' It shut them up for twenty years."
"Someone poisoned a filthy turncoat spy, and they blame entire Russia. They threaten to
bomb our whole country of 150 million. A cyber-attack, a war - they're nuts. British Prime
Minister Mey, May, or whatever, has gone mad. The lady who's never been to war. Like
Thatcher, who'd never been to war, but started one over the Falkland Isles in Argentina.
And, this one is starting a war in Europe."
The Brits are genuinely good people. My wife much enjoyed herself there on a trip three
years ago - except with being threatened with arrest for possessing some Walmart pepper
spray. They are much dependent on a warfare economy. Caught between the EU and DC with
economic pressure from China, they hooked their wagon to Washington and must play the phony
"it was a Russian assassination" game. It's a matter of survival. They are experts at war and
torment having run the world or been top dog for well over two centuries. America could help
Britain by eliminating all neocons from our government. All this fuss over Hillary's crimes
and Comey etc - small potatoes. We have to go after Bush Jr. and make him answer for 9/11.
That's the core issue festering in our national soul. Few will talk about it. We need to pull
Bush from his hidey-hole and get him on trial. Everything else will then resolve.
When an event occurs that that fundamentally changes the dynamics of global geopolitics,
there is one question above all others whose answer will most assuredly point to its
perpetrators. That question is "Cui bono?" If those so indicted are in addition found to have
had both motive and means then, as they say in the US, it's pretty much a "slam-dunk" .
Discounting the Official Narrative as the absurdity it
so clearly is, there are just two organisations on the entire planet with the expertise,
assets, access and political protection necessary to have both executed 9/11 and effected its
cover-up to date (ie the means). Both are Intelligence Agencies - the CIA and the Israeli Mossad whose motives were arguably the most
compelling. Those motives dovetailed perfectly with the NeoconPNAC agenda, with it's explicitly stated need for
"...a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" [1] in order to
mobilise US public opinion for already planned wars, the effects of which would be to destroy
Israel's enemies.
Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she found Ms Skripal
slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions.
The woman, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery position and opened her airway, as others
tended to her father.
She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, but added that she "feels fine".
Even if the Russian government had ordered Skripal's kidding, no way would they be so sloppy
as to spew toxins all over the place sickening innocent people. If the backward North Koreans
can do a targeted chemical-based assassination, the Russians certainly can. This is yet
another Anglo-Zionist insult against Russian technical knowhow.
We all know the KGB is smart and crafty and so is Putin. So for unknown reasons, they want to
kill a retired Russian spy living openly in London. Do these brilliant people choose to:
1. Use a dangerous nerve agent that must be smuggled into England, is easily traceable to
Russia, is dangerous to the assassin, and difficult to employ and ensure a kill?
Or:
2. Pay a desperate drug addict to club him on the head on the street and steal his
wallet?
"... This diagrams this chemist put in his tweets are from the Wikipedia article on Novichoks. They are hardly definitive. And he never answers the question Craig poses about how can Porton down say the stuff they have is from Russia when they have no Russian control sample with which to compare it. ..."
"... Saying that all samples of the stuff have the same chemical formula just demolishes his own argument. Even Jeremy Corbyn says it's about the trace impurities, but even then a sample from the same, known source ( indeed, batch) would be needed. ..."
So the chemist takes one of his arguments greatest weaknesses attempting to make it a
strength. That the Russians wanted to be the chief suspects!
Well of course they did, which state wouldn't wish to be vilified on the world stage, to
take an inevitable hit to its economy and international standing, who wouldn't enjoy the
imposition of yet more sanctions, and finally who could say hand on heart they don't secretly
want to have their assets frozen? Not a euphemism.
That a state assassins first priority would be to put as much distance between the state and
the evidence should be patently obvious.
The Chemists suggestion that it would help to scare Russians at home is frankly ridiculous,
after having inevitably thought about it for some time if this was the best he could offer, it
does show the question around motive is the most tricky for the bullshitters. The other
suggestion, wishing to scare poor old Blighty cos she's got no mates is equally if not more
risible.
If 'Porton Down' just showed the mass spectra obtained of the samples without any
structural formulas that would count as a piece of evidence to many of us.
This diagrams this chemist put in his tweets are from the Wikipedia article on Novichoks.
They are hardly definitive. And he never answers the question Craig poses about how can
Porton down say the stuff they have is from Russia when they have no Russian control sample
with which to compare it.
Saying that all samples of the stuff have the same chemical formula
just demolishes his own argument. Even Jeremy Corbyn says it's about the trace impurities,
but even then a sample from the same, known source ( indeed, batch) would be needed.
Perhaps Russia will instruct a
challenge
inspection of Porton Down? On my quick reading, an inspection would have to go ahead
unless three-quarters of the OPCW council block it within 12 hours. (Possibly a "stop" is
different from a "block" and only requires a majority?)
Considering UK behavior towards Russia as a slap on face , Russia not only should but must
demand immediate release of all information available to UK on this case and samples. It
should be done in aggressive manner and backed by international law to which UK is a signer.
Someone must put the money where mouth is or shut up and go away .
"... In 2014, a highly credible source – a high ranking French security expert by the name of Paul Barril exposed the existence of a plot to demonise Putin and thus destabilise and weaken Russia; it is called Operation Beluga. ..."
"... Operation Beluga ..."
"... William Dunkerley is author of Ukraine in the Crosshairs. He is a media business analyst, principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, and a Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. ..."
"... Najadi says the interview drew out the converse revelation that Litvinenko was actually killed by "an Italian who administered the deadly polonium 210." What's more, he astonishingly says, the operation was carried out under the auspices of the US and UK. ..."
"... The Phony Litvinenko Murder ..."
"... Litvinenko Murder Case Solved ..."
"... "According to Paul Barril, Litvinenko was himself working for the late Boris Berezovsky [a Russian fugitive oligarch that made London his home] who, according to Barril, was in turn working for and with the British intelligence service MI6. Barril said, 'Litvinenko has betrayed his employers, Berezovsky and the MI6, and has pocketed large sums of money, millions of US dollars, that were destined for agent provocateurs within the Berezovsky clan. The sole goal was to globally discredit Putin and the Russian Federation. This Western intelligence operation was directed from Washington DC and London. Its code name is Beluga.'" ..."
"... Najadi says, "These new revelations from Captain Paul Barril now open a new window to the truth about the motive for killing Alexander Litvinenko." ..."
"... Now the Litvinenko scandal takes on a new proportion. It's no longer just an incessantly long-running murder mystery. It just might be the telltale sign of an enormous geopolitical provocation that is wreaking havoc with world stability. ..."
You would have to have been in a coma or otherwise unconscious to not have heard the one
about the two poisoned Russians on an English park bench and how those evil Russians did it,
the news media has talked of little else in the past week.
Despite giving this story immense amounts of air time, the media have completely failed to
apply even the most rudimentary standards of journalism, they have done a shockingly bad job of
reporting on this case.
They have utterly failed to do their job and ask the relevant questions such as: Who was
this Russian? Why was he poisoned? Who was he associated with? Who might want him dead? Who has
he upset? etc; the sort of basic questions that should be asked right at the beginning, the
moment the story broke.
Instead, all we have been given, in lieu of actual journalistic reporting, is a bunch of
talking heads, many of them members of the UK government, all of them bleating about how
reckless and downright murderous the Russians are to have brazenly attacked someone on English
soil.
Where is the evidence? Where is the investigative reporting? The media has simply accepted
whole and unquestioning the 'Russia did it' claim of Theresa May, obediently following the
government's narrative, not once allowing a dissenting voice to be heard lest it asks even the
simplest question or expresses even a glimmer of doubt.
What happened to that most proudly held tradition of English law – that one is
innocent until proven guilty? Instead of applying that standard of English justice to Vladimir
Putin, we have simply accepted he is guilty because Theresa May and Boris Johnson said so.
This is not the first time this has happened, a little over a decade ago, the death of
Russian Alexander Litvinenko in London was also blamed on Putin. Litvinenko was not murdered on
Putin's orders, there was never even a single shred of evidence to support that claim;
furthermore, there was a mass of evidence to point to a completely different group of
people.
However, the British government and media steadfastly ignored all the inconvenient facts and
simply blamed Putin, exactly the same as they are today over Sergei Skripal and his
daughter.
Litvinenko's death was most likely accidental, the result of mishandling of the Polonium-210
he was engaged in smuggling. Litvinenko was an ex-FSB officer who, like many of his former
comrades, was now in the employ of the Khazarian mafia. He worked for Boris Berezevsky as a
mule, transporting nuclear materials back and forth to Israel.
This is made obvious by the places that traces of Polonium-210 were found: on the British
Airways planes that flew Litvinenko back and forth to Israel, in Boris Berezovsky's house, in
the offices of businesses owned by Berezovsky
Were Berezovsky and his Khazarian mafia associates investigated, did the media look into the
background to this story? Nope, they simply piled the blame on Putin, regardless of the
complete lack of evidence, just as they have done this week in the Skripal case.
There have been a great deal of similar cases of 'blame Putin' in recent years, the
Litvinenko and Skripal cases are simply the most well known. When so many accusations are aimed
at one man and so little evidence is presented to support those accusations, one has to wonder
if there is some kind of plot to demonise Putin.
Well, wonder no more for there is clear evidence that such a plot exists in the form of a
long-running operation by the intelligence services of the West, primarily the US and Britain,
but no doubt aided by the Mossad and others.
In 2014, a highly credible source – a high ranking French security expert by the
name of Paul Barril exposed the existence of a plot to demonise Putin and thus destabilise and
weaken Russia; it is called Operation Beluga.
This bombshell was reported by one reporter for one online publication and thus went
unnoticed, certainly no-one in the mainstream media made any mention of it, lest their 'Putin
did it' narrative was holed beneath the waterline and sunk with all hands by this
bombshell.
You can read the article that exposed the existence of Operation Beluga below;
precious little else is known about this operation, but VT is investigating and will report
what we learn in the near future.
William Dunkerley is author of Ukraine in the Crosshairs. He is a media business
analyst, principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, and a Senior Fellow at the
American University in Moscow.
Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of
Operation Beluga, a covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its
leaders.
Is that what's behind much of the threatening rhetoric now going back and forth between the
US and Russia?
Barril exposed Operation Beluga in a recent interview with Swiss businessman Pascal Najadi
on the 2006 Alexander Litvinenko death case. Litvinenko was a reputed former spy who many
believe was murdered with radioactive polonium on orders of Vladimir Putin.
Najadi says the interview drew out the converse revelation that Litvinenko was actually
killed by "an Italian who administered the deadly polonium 210." What's more, he astonishingly
says, the operation was carried out under the auspices of the US and UK.
In my books The Phony Litvinenko Murder and Litvinenko Murder Case Solved
I've written about an Italian connection. But I can't confirm that Barril is talking about the
same person.
Here's what Najadi told me:
"According to Paul Barril, Litvinenko was himself working for the late Boris Berezovsky
[a Russian fugitive oligarch that made London his home] who, according to Barril, was in turn
working for and with the British intelligence service MI6. Barril said, 'Litvinenko has
betrayed his employers, Berezovsky and the MI6, and has pocketed large sums of money, millions
of US dollars, that were destined for agent provocateurs within the Berezovsky clan. The sole
goal was to globally discredit Putin and the Russian Federation. This Western intelligence
operation was directed from Washington DC and London. Its code name is Beluga.'"
Barril's comments deserve serious consideration. A former officer of the French Gendarmerie
Nationale, he's been dubbed "Supercop" in France. Barril is cofounder of the GIGN French
antiterror group, and has also served in French presidential security. During his career he has
led several private security companies, as well.
Najadi says, "These new revelations from Captain Paul Barril now open a new window to
the truth about the motive for killing Alexander Litvinenko."
Litvinenko's death has been a hot topic for officials within British officialdom. A UK
coroner's inquest failed to reach a verdict on the manner and cause of Litvinenko's death, even
after the passage of almost ten years. Then a politically-motivated official inquiry was
authorized by Prime Minister David Cameron. Its final report hypothesized that Putin was behind
the death, but it failed to produce any credible evidence. (See "Six Reasons You Can't Take the
Litvinenko Report Seriously")
Britain had accused two Russians of poisoning Litvinenko. But the UK prosecutor failed to
make his case against them, claiming that he had only "grave suspicions" about who's to
blame.
Then there was the aborted coroner's inquest, and finally a report was issued under
suspicious circumstances by a discredited judge who lacked the basic qualifications for
conducting an official inquiry. (See "Britain Allowed Unqualified Judge to Decide Litvinenko
Case. Now Inquiry Report Must Be Recalled" and "Discredited Litvinenko 'Judge' Sends Parliament
Untrustworthy Verdict.")
Now the Litvinenko scandal takes on a new proportion. It's no longer just an incessantly
long-running murder mystery. It just might be the telltale sign of an enormous geopolitical
provocation that is wreaking havoc with world stability.
In the run-up to the American presidential election many of the candidates have talked very
tough on dealing with Russia's role in the world. I wonder how many of them have bought into
the Beluga scheme.
As we all know Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned by polonium, a rare radioactive substance.
The main narrative blamed it all on Vladimir Putin of Russia. The rationale rested on little
other than because Litvinenko was a Putin critic. This was the quick line in mass media, and it
was on all the typical war propaganda channels.
There are many things wrong with the "Putin did it" story. For one, there is no motive, even
with Litvinenko being a critic of Russia, he was no threat whatsoever to Putin. The man worked
with Chechen terrorists and the Israeli-Russian oligarchs.
But assuming that there was a sufficient motive to kill him, think about this: Why would
Russia use a very rare, very expensive, and easily traceable radioactive substance to kill him
instead of some cheap poison or just shooting him? Why risk smuggling radioactive material into
the UK which is an act of war?
Yet that is exactly what the UK/US media would have you believe. They want to say that Putin
had someone sneak into the UK with polonium and poison Litvinenko with it. It just isn't
plausible. It's actually absurd.
Alexander Litvinenko who was formerly FSB fled to the UK to avoid court prosecution in
Russia, worked for a shady Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky. Boris Berezovsky just so happens
to be the Israeli-Russian oligarch who lived in London after fleeing the Russian judicial
system for a multitude of crimes too long to list. He was on Interpol's most wanted list. Here
is the grand prize.
After the US and UK press branded Putin with the poisoning despite there being Zero
evidence, (something the US is very well known for now) investigators were tracking down the
traces of Polonium in the UK. They detected traces of Polonium at Berezovsky's office and
residence!
Now I do not know about you, but in my place of work, and certainly in my house, I do not
have rare radioactive substances. Polonium is not something you just get at the market or pick
up by accident walking through the park.
No experienced mob boss like Berezovsky would be dumb enough to murder an underling in such
a manner either. Therefore his death was an accident. It was mostly likely it was a botched
smuggling operation. Why was he moving such a dangerous substance? Did he need fast cash? Were
they planning to create a dirty bomb? Such a "smoky bomb" would turn the Polonium into powder
and kill anyone who ingested it.
Traces of Polonium were found on the planes that Litvinenko had been on. So I think we can
deduce what happened. He was a mule. The questions remain, why did he have it?, Where did he
get it? What was he going to do with it? Why was it in the offices of Berezovsky and Erinsys
Ltd (Britain's Blackwater)?
The "Putin did it" smear case has never made sense. First of all, the amount of polonium 210
in play would have cost millions of dollars. That amount is too expensive to purchase and too
large to go unnoticed if it were stolen. The only way to obtain such a quantity would be on a
well organized black market that had a connection to a nuclear facility. It would certainly
help organized crime if the nuclear powered supplier they received the Polonium from was not
subjected to international inspections or part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Such a
country, (Foreign country A) which denied they even built nuclear weapons for decades, would
certainly also deny selling their Polonium byproduct as well.
Is it possible to hide that from the press? Yes. The media would ignore this for the same
reason the media ignores them stealing nuclear secrets and building hundreds of nuclear weapons
in Dimona, then throwing whistle blowers who took pictures of their warheads, in jail.
Litvinenko was in Israel, where he met Leonid Nevzlin the CEO of Yukos shortly before he
died. If you wanted to buy/steal radioactive material that would be the place. What was he
negotiating with Nevzlin? We learned Alexander had been an informant in a case that led to the
arrest of nine Georgina and Russian Mobsters in Spain, including Alexander Gofstein a lawyer
for Yukos who apparently was laundering money.
The downfall began when Georgina Mob Boss Zakhar Kalashov was arrested in May 2006. The scam
was similar to what the old Five Families of New York had done, when guys like Meyer Lansky
took profits from illegal gambling businesses and funneled them into buying up real estate in
Florida. In the European case, the mob was taking illegal funds and buying up real estate in
Spain as well as making investments into legitimate businesses.
Litivnenko's associates, Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi, who both had met with him the day
of the poisoning, were also both hospitalized. They left traces of Polonium in Hamburg as they
had taken the trip to Germany before meeting Litvinenko. It appears all three were involved in
a smuggling operation, but for who?
Short answer: Russian Oligarch Boris Berezovsky's employee Alexander Litvinenko died from
over exposure to Polonium in a botched smuggling operation. That is why traces of it were at
Boris's house and on the planes Litvinenko was riding to and from Israel. The smear on
Putin/Russia using a highly traceable 10 million dollar poison to kill a critic is about as
plausible and rational as saying we have "British Intelligence" about Niger . This transparent
bogus lie was a quick and shamelessly sloppy explanation to cover up how and why this man in
the UK had a radioactive poison in his body. Polonium only has a half life of 138 days.
Litvinenko had been in Israel to visit Yukos's CEO, just shortly before he died. And it's an
open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, the only place without nuclear safeguard or
inspections. Traces of polonium were also on the British Airway planes that Litvinenko took to
and from Israel. So if they would have the means, location, and the timing fits, but let's just
blame, Putin "The New Hitler" as Neocons have dubbed him?
Why the fuss about a conspiracy claiming that Putin put Litvinenko on a hitlist and poisoned
him? Well as wacky as that story is, it was probably the best they could come up with on short
notice. Boris knew once the police found out how Litvinenko died that there would be a lot of
explaining to do. He also knew that if the investigation went forward that they could find more
of this Polonium on his properties. So they just claimed the KGB was trying to kill them
all.
Some History
This is not the first time that Berezovsky tried to pin a murder on someone else and claim
that all the damning evidence pointing to him was a frame. There are the notorious cases (in
Russia) of Ivan Litskevich and Vlad Listyev.
Ivan Listkevich was the general director of the Omsk oil Refinery easily the best refinery
in Russia. Abramovich and Berezovsky planned to take over the refinery and make it part of
Berezovsky's Sibnef (which it now is). Listkevich resisted. Ivan had outside investments from
LUKoil (10% of the stock) and CS First Boston.
So in no way was he threatened to sink. Omsk was in the best location, had the latest
equipment, and was well positioned to continue to soar. They serviced the biggest oil producers
in Russia. Naturally Ivan did not want to be swallowed by Sibnef.
August 19, 1995 Ivan was found drowned in the Irtysh River. I doubt he went there to swim.
Five days later Sibnef (Gazprom) took over. August 24th 1995, using his good buddy Yeltsin,
Berezovsky got a Presidential Decree №872, to order a transfer of all the state's share
in Omsk as well as 4 other companies to Sibnef. Then in 1996 Boris and Roman privatized Sibnef
through a series of Loans-for-Shares' auctions which were a complete scam run through front
companies and offshore banks. Yeltsin approved of it.
The case may leave doubts in the mind until one learns about the murder of Vlad Listyev. In
1994 Boris attacked one of his rivals over control of a media outlet. Part of the attack was
broadcast all over TV and came to be known as "faces in the snow" as Boris's rival's bodyguard
were forced at gun point to lie face down in the snow.
Shortly after a 90mph high speed chase and attacking rival Gusinsky's MOST guards and
pinning Gusinsky in his own building, Berezovsky would take control of ORT (channel 1) through
an illegal non-public "auction" and gain a near media monopoly.
For details on that I recommend reading "God Father of the Kremlin" if you can still find
it. It was written by the senior editor of Forbes in Russian who holds a Ph.D in Russian
history Paul Klebnikov. For the record Paul Klebnikov was killed after publishing his book on
the Oligarchs, particularly on Boris, who is on the cover. He was shot four times in Moscow
while leaving work and then died in the hospital after getting stuck on an elevator.
After the Gusinsky event, Boris had another problem. Vladislav Listyev. Listyev was probably
the most popular talk show host in Russia and a TV producer. He was a business partner with
Boris but the problem was he was not crooked.
As general director of ORT he decided to fix a multi-million dollar leak in the company and
indirect way of Boris paying people off in the Mob to do dirty work, as well as paying himself
by spending money for ads in other companies owned where he also ran the advertising sales. He
had an offer from Sergei Lisovsky to buy up the sector. Negotiations never went through and
Vlad had a different idea.
On Feb 20th 1995 Vlad announced that he would break the monopoly of Boris and Sergei. He
called for a moratorium on ORT advertising until they could work out ethical standards. As you
can imagine that did not make Boris or the rest of the mob happy.
Eight days later Boris personally met with "Nikolai" a mafia boss, and handed him a hundred
thousand dollars in cash. This was witnessed by two police officers who were monitoring the
Mob. Prior to that Boris's lacky Badri offered money to a different gangster but that man was
arrested before he could do what was asked of him and he confessed this in jail. On March 1st
the day after Berezovsky paid a second Mob Boss, Vlad Listyev was shot in the back at the
entrance of his home.
Guilty as sin, with a confession against Badri as well as being personally witnessed by two
police, offering another mob boss money, Boris was desperate. He was inches away from being
arrested. Boris's TV network was cut out of government subsidies after the police raided it and
it was subject to bankruptcy.
Fellow Media giant and friend Ruppert Murdoch promised to invest in the network and bail him
out. How nice. And we all know where Murdoch stands. This relationship might also explain why
Fox News and Sky News in the UK were so blatantly cheerleading the "Putin killed Litvinenko"
conspiracy story.
But here is the real kicker. It is just as outrageous and far fetched as the Litvinenko
poisoning. Boris concocted a story for Yeltsin which was recorded on video tape produced by
Irina Lesnevskaya a producer at ORT and a friend of Yeltsin's wife. The tape claimed that it
was all a big conspiracy against Berezovsky and that the real culprit (who had no motive other
than to frame Boris [apparently able to hire a gun to kill Vlad but not Boris?]) was none other
than bitter rival Gusinsky of Most Bank who Boris had already tried to kill once.
Yeltsin was paranoid of Gusinsky's political ambitions and Boris knew this. Boris also
blamed X-KGB and said Vlad was killed by the MOST group, and not the mob he was witnessed
meeting with a week after Vlad was going to break his monopoly. (Sounds like "Iraq moved the
nonexistent WMDs to Syria just to make the US look bad." give me a break) Boris claimed to be
set up because he was loyal to Yeltsin as was his new media outlet.
Yeltsin ever a partner in cover ups, not to mention a drunk and a thief, got Boris out of
trouble once again by firing the lead investigators in the case which intimidated others to
drop it. There was a huge public outcry. A TV personality had been killed. ORT created a new
company called ORT advertising with a monopoly to sell ads on commission no less, and the
boss-man chosen was none other than Sergei Lisovsky. Wow how utterly shameless.
If you can speak Russian or if you can find an English copy of the Boris/Lesnevskaya tape
transcript sent to Yeltsin, it's going to make you very angry. It is about as plausible as
saying Putin risked an act of war with the UK to kill a critic who worked for both a criminal
as well as terrorist.
Who Done It?
So we know what didn't happen. But there still remains a "who done it." The quickest way to
get to the bottom of this is to see who is lying the most and loudest, because that is usually
who has the most to hide.
Remember Anna Politkovskaya? She was killed on Putin's birthday and the alternative press
and the 'mindlessly accepting any conspiracy' types who fell for it, tried to use that
circumstantial "evidence" to blame the murder on Putin.
These are the same types that claim Russia bombed its own apartment buildings to start a war
with Chechnya omitting the fact that the apartment bombing took place five months after the war
has already started, and the "sources" trying to blame the FSB were none other than Boris's
lacky Litvinenko and well known plagiarist David Satter, who wrote for the PNAC co-founders'
Weekly Standard, which gave the world all the bogus lies about Iraq's WMD and connection to the
September 11th attacks.
Robert Kagan, the paper's cofounder with William Kristol, wrote an op-ed in the Washington
Times calling "Speaking of Iraq" which pushes every erroneous prewar scare tactic there
was.
His wife Victoria Nuland is the same woman who was recorded on the phone saying "F" the EU
and openly talking about who would be a good replacement Prime Minister in Ukraine. She chose
Arseniy Yatseniuk, who she called "Yatz" and he did become the prime minister of Ukraine a
month later after the coup. Everything out of this factions mouth has been blindly
anti-Russian.
There is a huge difference between conspiracy and kookpiracy. Getting away from the
outlandish unsubstantiated claims about Anna's death, let's uncover something factual. Anna
Politkovskaya was the journalist who had published three different articles on how SOMEONE was
testing Polonium on Chechen children. Gee! Where have we seen THAT scenario before? Anna's
articles were published in the Novaya Gazeta in 2006 and she was killed October of that same
year.
The Washington Post then makes this clever claim. "Leonid Nevzlin, a former Yukos oil
company shareholder and Russian exile currently living in Israel, told the Associated Press in
late November that Litvinenko had given him a document related to a dossier on criminal charges
made by Russian prosecutors against people connected to Yukos. Nevzlin, who is charged by
Russian prosecutors with having organized killings, fraud and tax evasion, claimed Litvinenko's
inquiries may have provided a motive for his poisoning"
Notice who else is in that Washington Post article (Scaramella) and who was planting the
ideas that Putin had killed both Litvinenko and Anna. How crazy is that to use polonium to
murder someone Scaramella is a rotten one.
After Anna's lawyer Stanislav Markelov was murdered in 2009 followed by the murder of one of
her key informants in Chechnya Natalia Estemirova the same year, there was a retrial in Anna's
case which went to the Supreme Court.
Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov stirred up a public disgust when he said about Anna's
informant Natalia Estemirova on Radio Liberty "She was a woman who had never possessed any
honor, dignity or conscience."
The prosecution cornered Dmitry Pavliutchenkov a former policeman who in turn confessed
Lom-Ali Gaitukayev was who negotiated the contract killing and behind him he suspected Boris
Berezovsky. Dmitry was sentenced to 11 years in jail. Five men were found guilty in her murder.
Three were the Chechen brothers who had been acquitted in the first trial and they went to
prison. Rustam Makhmudov and Lom-Ali Gaitukayev got life sentences in 2014. Berevsovsky had
died the year before in March of 2013.
The most troubling thing here is not that mob did something illegal or that the Western
press jumped the gun to do a anti-Russian witch hunt. All of that is pretty run of the mill.
It's not even that Israel secretly has nukes and is involved with organized crime. Again,
imagine my lack of shock.
It's not even the multiple murders that are most troubling. The most troubling part of this
story is what the ultimate purpose of that much Polonium was for and why it was in the UK. The
potential for a dirty bomb is enormous. With the current climate of ISIS and disgruntled youth
in Europe joining the mercenary forces to fight Israel's enemies in Syria and Lebanon, a dirty
bomb in the UK is not an unimaginable scenario.
Just having such a thing could also hold leverage over politicians there too. The source of
the Polonium should have been traced and potential sources should also be subject to
inspection.
"... For conclusive confirmation a coincidence of what is called 'retention times' would also be required against a standard. The retention time is the time it takes for the compound to 'show itself' at the end of the long thin tube inside the Gas Chromatograph. Different chemicals hold on to the tube with varying tenacities. and hence give various rates of elution. ..."
"... So what is being implied here, is that the authorities have both: A control sample (to determine if the quantities found would be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example. ..."
OK I'll bite. As a former industrial organic chemist, both synthetic organic, pilot plant, and QC (quality control), post-doc,
this smells to me.
Regarding the synthesis, as I understand it, this class are binary agents, i.e. non-lethal till mixing, so the two 'halves' could
be made without specialist kit. Even active nerve agents could be prepared using a just fume cupboard, and the right PPE. Nothing
too special required other than non shaky hands. Could be made anywhere the precursors are available. We worked with HF, OsO4, Thallium
etc in such environments.
Regarding the analysis. Typically small quantities are analysed (I used to install them) using GCMS. Gas Chromatography Mass spectrometry.
This can detect down to femtogram levels.
OK.
So there exists databases of substances and their breakdown patterns under fragmentation, which can give possible matches to known
compounds. This compound may have been on there. However, for an allegation of such seriousness, these would be 'indicative' rather
than 'conclusive'. For conclusive confirmation a coincidence of what is called 'retention times' would also be required against
a standard. The retention time is the time it takes for the compound to 'show itself' at the end of the long thin tube inside the
Gas Chromatograph. Different chemicals hold on to the tube with varying tenacities. and hence give various rates of elution.
So a professional forensic scientist, I would hope, would do the following.
Run a GC-Mass Spectrum to confirm the molecular weight.
Check against a database for possible compounds which correspond to that molecular weight and fragment pattern (there may
be a few, it may not be unambiguous at this stage)
Check for the presence of other impurities, and the ratio of the main ingredient to these, which would give you the 'fingerprint'
Run the sample of unknown concentration against a standard of known concentration to determine the amount of active ingredient
in the sample.
Compare the 'fingerprint' to database of other 'fingerprints' in a library.
Only when this fingerprint matches the fingerprint from a library can you determine the origin. Even then you can not say
who administered the substance, but you would have an avenue to explore.
OK so a good forensic laboratory would have access to the following. A synthetically pure sample of known weight and impurity
profile. Finger prints of samples from 'sources of concern'
So what is being implied here, is that the authorities have both: A control sample (to determine if the quantities found would
be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example.
"... Many trails point to the fact that Russia is responsible ..."
"... It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never ever happen and we're taking it very seriously as I think are many others. ..."
"... There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter." ..."
"... our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision, and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK for the first time since the Second World War ..."
"... (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok, since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) ..."
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plainly stated that to refuse this assistance is a
direct violation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention which states that the country suspected of being the place of origin of
a toxic agent is to be contacted first in the event of that agent's use.
One would wonder "why not?" At least one ought to.
But in the meantime, Russia is not taking this matter lying down. More, there is even a bit
of humor.
The temperature of relations drops to
-2 -3, but we are not afraid of cold weather. pic.twitter.com/mand9YyoaE
Firstly, Moscow has opened its own investigation into the attempted murders of the Skripals
on its own. In addition, they have also opened an investigation into the suspected murder of
Nikolay Glushkov, a Russian businessman, which also happened in London.
And of course,
when asked by a reporter from Reuters if Moscow would expel British diplomats, Foreign
Minister Lavrov smiled and said, "We will, of course."
Even US President Donald Trump is seen by some news agencies to be "joining the dogpile"
against Russia, though as it has been noted elsewhere here on The Duran , Mr. Trump's
response suggests very tacit agreement, but in such a way as to leave plenty of opening, as the
American president seems to have a cooler approach to this matter.
The primary allegation has this sort of structure:
" Many trails point to the fact that Russia is responsible ." – German
Chancellor Angela Merkel
" It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never
ever happen and we're taking it very seriously as I think are many others. " – US
President Donald Trump
" There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable
for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter." – UK Prime Minister
Theresa May
" our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision, and we think it
overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the
streets of the UK for the first time since the Second World War " – UK Foreign
Minister Boris Johnson
But again these are allegations, and there is no conclusive evidence that verifies any of
this aside from the point that Novichok was used. (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok,
since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) At
best this is circumstantial evidence leading to a wild assumption, and at worst it is
conjecture much like that which has been the banner topic in the United States for 16 months
concerning Russia and Donald Trump's election.
All words, no facts. Makes a person feel a bit like this man
"... How do you know Skripal was murdered? Even the British haven't claimed that. In fact we don't even know that Skripal was injured. There have been no photos, no medical statements, we are just expected to believe all the fake news. ..."
"There are only three scenarios explaining the murder of Skripal "
How do you know Skripal was murdered? Even the British haven't claimed that. In fact we
don't even know that Skripal was injured. There have been no photos, no medical statements,
we are just expected to believe all the fake news.
But hey, highly likely has become overwhelmingly likely so why should we quibble.
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his
own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War,
and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.
The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by
Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of
the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response
so far proves their culpability.
THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of
Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday,
it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It
must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko
and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such
expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.
JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes
that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken
through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the
necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under
Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack
to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence
as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5,
which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5,
but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US
Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor
Cohen.
You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now
tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions
that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?
STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man.
It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence,
and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's
put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and
it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly
is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some
ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say,
no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll
get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts
that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember
in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to
come next.
Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right
on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin,
unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic
attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get
this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very
quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.
AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before.
And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.
JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain
a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?
AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for
saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import
of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being
somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.
... ... ...
STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly.
Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have
great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's
holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia
related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search
for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.
And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader
of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior
on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.
AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now
of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you.
And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism
and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [
https://youtu.be/yJEvlKKm6og ])
With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class
of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally
everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.
"... Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as evidenced by open sources ..."
"... .@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce suspected nerve agent. ..."
"... Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and he's written a stimulating and educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's propaganda. ..."
"... Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories. ..."
"... This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously "highly likely" that there is no actual evidence. ..."
In joint statement, world leaders agree Russia behind nerve agent attack on former spy
This is the joint statement of the whirled leaders:
We, the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, abhor the attack that took place against Sergei
and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK, on 4 March 2018. A British police officer who was also exposed in the attack remains seriously
ill, and the lives of many innocent British citizens have been threatened. We express our sympathies to them all, and our admiration
for the UK police and emergency services for their courageous response.
This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve
agent in Europe since the Second World War. It is an assault on UK sovereignty and any such use by a State party is a clear
violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of international law. It threatens the security of us all.
The United Kingdom briefed thoroughly its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. We
share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia´s failure to address the legitimate
request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility. We call on Russia to address all questions related to the
attack in Salisbury. Russia should in particular provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Our concerns are also heightened against the background of a pattern of earlier irresponsible Russian behaviour. We call
on Russia to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council to uphold international peace and security.
. .
here
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Russia destroyed all of its chemical weapons arsenals by 2017, a fact attested by @OPCW.
No research, development or manufacturing of projects codenamed Novichok has ever been carried out in Russia, all CW programmes
were stopped back in 1991-92
-
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received
specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as
evidenced by open sources
-
later:
-
.@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl
UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce
suspected nerve agent.
Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and
he's written a stimulating and
educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's
propaganda.
. . . the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War
Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since
the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of
people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in
many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that
Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi
chemical weapons factories.
. . . it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack
This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously
"highly likely" that there is no actual evidence.
"... Since it seems that Russia's steadfast promise to defend its men and women in Damascus has effectively staved off a US attack, the western alliance did the next best thing to attacking Russia in Syria – it decided to frame Russia for something that happened on English soil. - Let's Talk About Motive in The Skripal Case: Let's Talk About Syria ..."
Just read a very interesting supposition by Adam Garrie, which strikes a very true note:
Since it seems that Russia's steadfast promise to defend its men and women in Damascus has effectively staved off a US attack,
the western alliance did the next best thing to attacking Russia in Syria – it decided to frame Russia for something that happened
on English soil. -
Let's Talk About
Motive in The Skripal Case: Let's Talk About Syria
So, spite. Wounded ego.
And further demonstration of the west's pitiful lack of means to do anything much real in this world except kill people unprepared
to fight back. What will it do as more and more prepare to fight back? Ask Kim. Ask Duterte, Maduro, Erdogan.
There's a CCTV camera on the traffic light opposite the restaurant (or was in Google St View June 2017)
here . When will they release the video, or was the camera "not
working"?
"... A former KGB officer told The Daily Beast that Western assumptions that these deadly concoctions must have been devised and authorized by the state showed a deep misunderstanding of Russia. ..."
"... Vassiliev, who became a KGB historian after retiring from the service, said the deaths of Skripal's wife, son and brother in recent years made this look more like a mafia revenge attack than a Kremlin-sanctioned mission. ..."
The Porton Down facility has been home to Britain's defense and technology research since reports emerged from First World War
battlefields that the Germans had killed 140 British soldiers with chlorine gas in January 1915. Coincidentally, the highly secretive
facility is located on the outskirts of Salisbury, just seven miles from where former Russian military intelligence colonel Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found on Sunday.
Samples were being analyzed within hours of the discovery after local police began to feel a physical reaction and officers raced
to shut down the areas of contamination. Witnesses reported seeing the victims unconscious, with their eyes rolled back, and foaming
at the mouth.
Skripal and his daughter were isolated immediately. About 24 hours after the attack, it was determined that they were suffering
from some sort of nerve agent in their system. While Skripal has stabilized, his daughter remains in critical condition; both are
being treated in the intensive care unit, along with a police officer who was called to investigate this mysterious illness.
Based on their symptoms and the contamination patterns, scientists who spoke to The Daily Beast are convinced this was a nerve
agent attack and not radiation exposure, a cyanide attack, or a biological weapon.
"In these recent cases, the symptoms described like frothing at the mouth, vomiting, convulsions and coma -- that's more likely
a nerve agent," said Timothy Erickson , chief of
medical toxicology at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital and faculty at Harvard Medical School. Erickson published a
paper last year in the journal
Toxicology Communications about last the
fatal
February 2017 attack on Kim Jong Nam , the half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, which used VX -- short for "Venomous
agent X."
VX was invented by British biological warfare experts at Porton Down, the very same facility where tests are underway this week.
Sarin and VX -- dangerous neurochemicals that disrupt nerve-organ messaging and shut down basic bodily functions -- are the most
popular of the agents, but others with similar properties do exist.
A senior intelligence source told the BBC that it is believed sarin and VX were not the agents used, posing the question: What
was used instead and what can that tell us about the source?
Around World War II, Nazi scientists synthesized an entire "G-class" of nerve agents that not only included sarin, but also soman,
cyclosarin, and tabun, variants that also debilitate the nervous system.
They were discovered accidentally
while manufacturing pesticides , which can have similar effects on humans, but they remain extremely difficult to produce.
Mark Bishop , a chemical weapons specialist
in nonproliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, said that producing them requires
a technical capacity and scientific know-how that isn't possible in many places. "It's tricky," Bishop said. "It requires a pretty
high level of expertise for producing chemicals."
Bishop said it was possible but highly unlikely that the Russians had developed a totally new nerve agent. "They're probably making
an attempt [to create other nerve agents], but it's tough. There's no real incentive to create a new nerve agent -- they already
work so well. The only motivation to create a new one would be if they wanted them to not be identified as chemicals or to fly under
the radar."
One option that is unlikely but potentially alarming is that Russia has finally succeeded in its Soviet era mission to create
a new class of nerve agents referred to as novichoks
whose molecules were not detectable through modern lab testing methods. "They tried to keep it a secret, and there's pretty skimpy
evidence that it was happening," Bishop cautioned. "But it's an interesting possibility that would point directly to the Russians."
No matter what substance was used, conclusively tracing the orders back to the Kremlin will prove difficult.
... ... ...
Judging by the rush to secure Skripal's home, the restaurant where he shared lunch with his daughter, the pub where they retired
afterwards, and the hospital where they were treated, it seems there were fears that contaminated footprints were indeed being left
along the way.
...The police officer, Nick Bailey, who was affected later at second-hand was so severely afflicted that he had to be treated
in intensive care, although he is now conscious and talking.
The weapons experts at Porton Down will be examining every molecule and the patterns of the substance's distribution around Salisbury
in the hope that they can find a specific chemical signature that will allow this agent to be traced back to its source.
... ... ...
A former KGB officer told The Daily Beast that Western assumptions that these deadly concoctions must have been devised and
authorized by the state showed a deep misunderstanding of Russia.
"People actually underestimate the level of corruption in Russia -- any Russian will tell you that the corruption is so high that
you can get anything, anything you want," said Alexander Vassiliev. "You want polonium? You get it -- just pay the money."
Vassiliev, who became a KGB historian after retiring from the service, said the deaths of Skripal's wife, son and brother
in recent years made this look more like a mafia revenge attack than a Kremlin-sanctioned mission.
"I was a cadet in the KGB spy school exactly at the time when Putin was -- we had the same training, we had the same instructors,
we had the same textbooks, so I always have an idea about how he is thinking," he said. "Intelligence services in civilized countries
don't do revenge -- emotions shouldn't have a place in espionage -- it's not like two guys got drunk in Moscow, decided to go to
Britain and kill a traitor, it doesn't work like that."
"Of course, he was a traitor -- he committed high treason. In the Soviet Union he would have been executed, definitely," said
Vassiliev. "But you only want to kill someone in espionage if you expect this guy to bring further damage to your country or your
intelligence agency."
Where Vassiliev, the scientific community and the British authorities all agree, is on the brazenness of this attack, which could
never have gone unnoticed.
Bishop, the weapons expert in California, said the failure to immediately kill the targets -- and incidental poisoning of 21 people
-- suggested that this was a sloppy job. "Nerve agents are pretty potent, and you don't need a high concentration to kill someone,"
he said. "It's really surprising that they're still alive. Either it was not a potent nerve agent or it was not administered efficiently
or it was impure and the proper concentration was not transferred."
Vassiliev agreed. "Generally it doesn't look like a special service operation because the whole thing was done in the daylight,
as far as I understand. On the other hand you can never be sure about it because many things can go wrong, there could have been
a mistake -- no secret agent is perfect."
"... "A briefing paper by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated: "We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail." ..."
A Quick Chemical Weapons History of Western Imperial Hypocrisy...
The latest UNSC 'meeting' occurring yesterday - at the behest of the ever yapping US poodles 'across the pond', is available
for viewing - (in it's a bit over an hour in it's entirety). I think that you might find find this video documentation of one
of the most farcical UNSC sessions to take place probably since the now infamous Colin Powell high kabuki theater piece - when
he comically held up for the council members - a vial of a "white power" substance that, I believe, turned out to be nothing more
than a packet of "Saccharin" hastily appropriated from the UN's commissary earlier that morning for "demonstration purposes ONLY!".
I think, He should have taken it a tad further and pretended to accidentally" drop the vial on the chamber floor - just to see
how the other UNSC members listening to his CIA inspired ruse would have responded. I'm sure that everyone attending would've
all had a great laugh together and then would have unanimously approved the west's request to bomb all thing Iraqi into oblivion.
What I think that you'll find of interest here, is not only the main parties (UK & the RF) presentations before the council,
but also the presentations of the remaining 13 Security Council members - including, of course. Ms. Haley's saccharin & sanctimonious
speech of the USA's eternal bond of solidarity with it's favorite, very well manicured pet poodle..eh.. ally: the UK. I especially
found the Chinese predictably short, but carefully parsed statement, along with those from African and South American SC ambassadors.
Finally, bringing this whole mock-moral unipolar charade full circle, below is the historically damning Wikipedia page on the
Halabja (but...he gassed his own people) massacre by Saddam Hussein on the evening of March the 16th, 1988 - nearly 2 months into
George the First's term, and near the end of the western supported Iran/Iraq war. One of the very best pretzeled presentational
pretenses came from none other that the now theatrically aggrieved sovereign "kingdom":
"A briefing paper by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated: "We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with
others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing
Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail."
The very first announcement made by Boris Johnson after the alleged terrorist act on the
British soil was " British footballers will not attend the championship in Russia" -- before
(BEFORE!) any investigation has been conducted.
The UK still refuses to provide the
required-by-law materials to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon.
The
whole "communication" with Russian re Skripal case has exposed a stunning incompetence of the
UK government across all departments, beginning with the incompetent Mrs. May and Mr. Johnson
and down to the US Sec of Def Gavin Williamson (a Diaper-Boy with the expertise in fine china
and ceramic countertops).
"... "Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or identity of its perpetrators? The government should work with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." ..."
Such a strong expression of righteousness from peterAUS -- and careful omission, a la
Quartermaster, of a simple fact articulated by Corbin:
"Has high-resolution trace analysis
been run on a sample of the nerve agent that revealed any evidence as to the location of its
production or identity of its perpetrators? The government should work with the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
But the UK government refuses to provide samples to
the OPCW. Why, peterAUS?
Is it too much to ask for the evidence? Or you want to compete with
the soy-boy Gavin Williamson, the former seller of ceramic countertops? Perhaps you should
watch the BBC documentary about Gladio before making your allegedly righteous rants re Saker.
And please, spare us your ziocon' "defense" of Western society.
The Saker's most important theme in this article is that the whole Western so called
Civilization is built largely on the capacity to LIE, (IE not tell the truth when one knows
the truth). Lying is the most fundamentally destructive actions in any culture and in the
West it is not only essential for success it is revered. I am so disgusted with the West that
it is best for this charade and circus to come to an end, and it seems that the Lying Liars
as Al Franken called them years ago have internalized there own Bull $hit and believe it
absolutely. Yes, Johnny, you can put your hand on the red hot stove and nothing will happen.
Go ahead, put it on there and see!!! Dumber than Dirt and God Damn F-n Proud of it too!! The
new Western Motto!!
The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanyanov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the
'Novichoks', now lives in a $1 million home in the United States. The AFP news agency just
interviewed him about the recent incident:
Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia
carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
"Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They kept
it and are still keeping it in secrecy."
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book
to make such a weapon.
"Russia did it", says Mirzanyanov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".
The book was published in 2008 and is available at Amazon as hardcover, paperback or for
$8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas which, Mirzanyanov says, could
be used to produce those chemical agents.
..But neither Porton Down nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may
believe that Mirzanyanov is just full of it.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not recognized
Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. The
U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this evaluation:
The name "Novichok" is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported
investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The
OPCW's Scientific Advisory Board states that it has insufficient information to comment on
the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013)
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's only
chemical weapons facility at Porton Down , a former colleague of Dr David Kelly,
published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence
of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. Robin
Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal
Society of Chemistry
"... The UK will promptly expel 23 Russian diplomats without waiting for the end of the investigation. Which means that from now on the investigation is highly politicized and tainted in a sense that it will be conducted by people who proved the existence of Iraq WMD in the past: ..."
"... This is one step further from the "self-indictment as a formal proof" used in Show Trials. Now it looks like "suspicion is the formal proof." ..."
"... Both cyberspace and poisoning with exotic chemical agents proved to be a perfect media for false flag operations designed to poison relations between nations and fuel war-style demonization. ..."
The UK will promptly expel 23 Russian diplomats without waiting for the end of the investigation. Which means that from now
on the investigation is highly politicized and tainted in a sense that it will be conducted by people who proved the existence
of Iraq WMD in the past:
Moscow refused to meet Mrs May's midnight deadline to co-operate in the case, prompting Mrs May to announce
a series of measures intended to send a "clear message" to Russia.
These include:
Expelling 23 diplomats
Increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight
Freezing Russian state assets where there is evidence they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals
or residents
Ministers and the Royal Family boycotting the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year
Suspending all planned high-level bilateral contacts between the UK and Russia
Plans to consider new laws to increase defences against "hostile state activity"
Mrs May told MPs that Russia had provided "no explanation" as to how the nerve agent came to be used in the UK, describing
Moscow's response as one of "sarcasm, contempt and defiance".
The use of a Russian-made nerve agent on UK soil amounted to the "unlawful use of force", she said.
So it looks more and more like a well planned multi-step propaganda operation, not an impromptu action on the part of GB. Kind
of replica of Russian election influence witch hunt in the USA with the replacement of cyberspace and elections with chemical
agents and poisoning.
So inconsistencies that were pointed in this thread (such as the mere fact that three people exposed are still alive) do not
matter anymore.
The verdict now is in.
This is one step further from the "self-indictment as a formal proof" used in Show Trials. Now it looks like "suspicion
is the formal proof."
Both cyberspace and poisoning with exotic chemical agents proved to be a perfect media for false flag operations designed
to poison relations between nations and fuel war-style demonization.
"... This entire Russian hysteria reminds me of the old western movies where a crowd gathers outside the sheriff's office being manipulated into hysteria by rabblerousers shouting "Hang the Bastard". The rabble rousers are the media and government ministers and the crowd is the western public. No need for evidence evidence since everyone knows he is guilty! The west has descended into a pit of their own filth. ..."
Relations
between Britain and Russia have become so toxic now that anyone working with Russian news media
is liable to be condemned as a stooge or traitor.
Senior Labour party member John McDonnell, the shadow finance minister, has conceded this
week that fellow opposition politicians "may be banned from appearing on Russian news media"
following the furore over allegations that Moscow carried out an assassination attempt in
Britain last week.
Other reports
have called on Britain's state media regulator, Ofcom, to cancel the broadcast license for
Russian government-owned news outlet RT. That move is being touted as "appropriate retaliation"
for Moscow's alleged involvement in the apparent poison attack on Sergei Skripal and his adult
daughter.
The pair have been hospitalized following an
incident in their adopted home town of Salisbury on March 4, in which it appears they were
exposed to a lethal nerve agent. Disgraced Russian agent Sergei Skripal had been living in the
southern England town for the past eight years following his exile to Britain in 2010 as part
of a spy exchange.
After much fevered speculation in British media, the Conservative
Prime Minister Theresa May followed up this week by
telling lawmakers in the House of Commons that "it was highly likely Russia was
responsible".
The main incriminating factor cited is that the poisonous substance has been
supposedly identified by British authorities as " novichok
" -- a Soviet-made nerve agent, similar to VX and other weaponized organophosphate compounds.
Moscow has categorically denied any involvement in the apparent murder bid on the Skripals.
Russia's Foreign Ministry has derided May's parliamentary address as "a circus show".
Let's back up a moment. May's claims of "highly likely" are eerily reminiscent of American
and British "high confidence" about weapons of mass destruction allegedly in Iraq and Syria; or
American and British "high confidence" about alleged Russian meddling in elections. It seems to
be always a case of assertion-without-evidence which is either eventually disproven, as with
WMDs in Iraq, or reliant on endless repetition by dutiful news media.
As for the British prime minister's supposed "smoking syringe" implicating Moscow because of
an alleged Soviet military-grade nerve agent "novichok", that depends on the word of British
military intelligence. How do we know novichok was actually used? It could have been any number
of highly-toxic related organophosphate chemicals.
Even if novichok was deployed to injure the Skripals that is far from proof of any Russian
connection. We can be sure Britain and other Western states have also developed their own
stocks of novichok. How easy it would be to use the chemical as an apparent fingerprint framing
the Kremlin, in the same way that the CIA and NSA can leave digital fingerprints framing
enemies for seeming cyber-attacks.
The official British position implicating Russia over the
Salisbury poisoning is tenuous, to say the least. But what is astounding is how the British are
toxifying relations with Russia based on no objective evidence.
When Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn stood up in parliament this week to reply to Theresa May's
speech, he was roundly vilified by Tory lawmakers and sections of the British media because he
did not "condemn" Russia over the Salisbury incident.
This is the toxic war-like climate that has been engendered in Britain owing to relentless
Russophobia whipped up by politicians and lynch-mob media mentality.
Russia is found "guilty" without any facts, based upon a ludicrous theory of revenge against
a has-been spy who had been living undisturbed in England for eight years. We are expected to
believe that Moscow would order his assassination with an identifiable Soviet-era chemical
weapon on the eve of its own presidential elections.
What's much more plausible is that the British authorities staged the event as a propaganda
stunt to frame and further demonize Russia. Theresa May probably hasn't a clue that she is
being manipulated by her own secret services, as are other British politicians media.
May
claims that the latest incident comes "against a backdrop of well-established Russian state
aggression". One could far more reasonably argue "a backdrop of British and Western
Russophobia".
There are many possible reasons for why British state forces would want to polarize
international relations even more than they already are with Russia.
Notably, the poisoning incident has led to
calls for greater military build-up by NATO forces on Russia's borders. That's an obvious
win for the British military-industrial complex.
Another factor is that Britain seems to be using the latest debacle as a way to further
damage European relations with Russia, demanding that Germany and France show "solidarity" by
condemning Moscow. This could be related to European energy geopolitics in which London and
Washington have a shared interest in sabotaging the soon-to-be-completed
Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Europe.
But one other tangible outcome is the way that Russian news media are being targeted with
even more venom. On the back of sensational claims that Russia "carried out a brazen attempt to
murder innocent civilians on our soil", the climate is now conducive to censoring
"Kremlin-backed news organizations" like RT and Sputnik.
As mentioned above, senior Labour
figures like John McDonnell, who is normally strongly independent-minded, are obligingly
calling for fellow members of their party to stop appearing on RT.
This Orwellian-like Russophobia is creating a situation in which anyone working with Russian
news media is prone to be labeled traitorous. Former British politicians like George Galloway
and Alex Salmond who have gone on to host programs for RT will, we can be sure, be subjected to
intense pressure to quit.
A sign of how hysterical the Russophobia has become is a
call this week in British media for Manchester United manager José Mourinho to
renege on his recent deal with RT as a football pundit during this summer's World Cup
tournament.
The same intimidatory atmosphere applies to all public figures and journalists who associate
with Russian news media. It's a global witch-hunt orchestrated to silence dissenting views.
Working with Russian news media is now tantamount to taking a poison pill.
Russian channels like RT and Sputnik have brought a refreshingly critical perspective to
many international events.
When American, British and other European politicians decry "Russian meddling in elections"
what they are really vexed about is the Russian news media performing a legitimate and laudable
function of properly informing the public. Denigrating Russian media as "Kremlin-sponsored
influence campaigns" is a desperate attempt by Western states to shut down critical voices.
The poisoning incident of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is conveniently having a broadside
toxic impact on relations with Russia for any number of ulterior objectives for the British
authorities.
One objective that seems to be clearly emerging is the way in which the Russophobia is being
used to incriminate Russian news media and anyone who might associate with them. That's partly
a reflection of how successful Russian news media have become in exposing Western governments'
crimes.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.
We have presidential elections in Russia on March 18, and this incident happens right before
the elections. How convenient. And who gains by this ? Russia ? I think not. This false flag
was instigated to vilify both Russia and Putin and give NATO an excuse to exist. The military
industrial complexes in the US and Western Europe will, of course, be overjoyed, as now they
expect more money. However, as far as I can see, many people are not buying this highly
transparent piece of nonsense.
Assumptions of guilt upon public accusation unless and until the accused undertakes the
almost impossible task of proving the negative appears to be the prevalent trend amongst
so-called "western democracies" everywhere.
I seem to recall US President Trump recently
saying something about "take the gun first, go through due process second" and many others
appear to agree with that approach ... although the designated 'villains' deserving that
treatment may vary.
"Theresa May probably hasn't got a clue she is being manipulated by her own intelligence
services"
Yes she does, she fully knows what is going on and is on board with it. If these vile
creatures succeed in bringing the unthinkable upon their citizens I sincerely hope there will
be enough people left who know where the blame lies and who will hunt down these evil scum
and deal with them adequately.
"Ratcheting up the Hysteria and Propaganda" for the "Final Battle" against all "evildoers."
(i.e. "evildoers of the world unite....the Anglo-American democracies.)
This entire Russian hysteria reminds me of the old western movies where a crowd gathers
outside the sheriff's office being manipulated into hysteria by rabblerousers shouting "Hang
the Bastard". The rabble rousers are the media and government ministers and the crowd is the
western public. No need for evidence evidence since everyone knows he is guilty! The west has
descended into a pit of their own filth.
As to MOTIVE. i have also read that this Russian man and his daughter were caught up in AND
HAD INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE that
British M16 actually CREATED THE INFAMOUS "RUSSIAN DOSSIER"....not Christopher Steele
alone...........and since this information is a bombshell [UK Intel trying to unseat Trump]
that this man and his daughter were knowledgable of AND THEY HAD REQUESTED PERMISSION TO
REPATRIATE HOME TO RUSSIA.........."somebody" decided to OFF the two..... I wonder who that
"somebody" might be?
Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
LIBERTY UNION founder
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727 9727
poor rupert murdoch, his plans for billions of profit via Genie Energy from the resources of
southern syria are being curtailed by russia. you have to feel for the guy, its only right
that he uses his media empire to whine about it!
We are witnessing a full court press by the US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada.
The leaders of these nations and their obedient news outlets are going all out to confront
Russia militarily, economically, politically and diplomatically. The hysteria stirred up by
Western politicians and their subservient media seems to be driven by an agenda to isolate
Russia from the rest of the world. The West is cynically using these unsubstantiated
allegations to malign, discredit and demonize Russia so as to undermine its international
standing. These repeated accusations seem like a page right out of NAZI Minister of
Propaganda Joseph Goebbels' "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times
becomes the truth ..If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it." The
assassination of this Russian double agent Sergei Skripal couldn't have come at a more
opportune time for Prime Minister Theresa May whose popularity was sagging in the polls. The
incident, irrespective of how disingenuous, provided her with a flag waving call to arms
against the alien Russian 'aggressor." This all fits in quite neatly with other orchestrated
allegations of Russian electoral interference, Russian trolls and hacking of DNC emails
disseminating from US politicians and Intelligence Services.
This bellicose fear mongering taking place throughout the West is happening while NATO is
literally on Russia's doorstep. How should Russia react to this mass hysteria? Their troops
aren't on the borders of Western Europe, the US or Canada. Russia doesn't have 700 military
bases in 70 countries throughout the world nor has it invaded other countries or conducted in
regime change as has the US and NATO.
It therefore doesn't seem illogical, given the provocative rhetoric coming from the US, UK
and Western Europe, that from a Russian perspective Russia is probably facing the greatest
challenge from the West since Hitler's 1941 invasion "Operation Barbarossa." Of course the
advent of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles in the last 72 years will hopefully
be enough to reign in the crazies in Washington and London's 10 Downing Street.
"... It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and pure propaganda outlets. ..."
"... Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same position for nearly a century. ..."
"... Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that. ..."
Lying in bed listening to Australian government media propaganda . Endless parroting about
the ' rules based order ' , ' the rising power of ( guess) and now Boris Johnson informing us
that the world is insensed at Russian aggression . It is funny and absurd , sad and deadly !
It's harder and harder to laugh at this nonsense. Just when you thought it could not get more
ridiculous, something like this happens. I keep hearing that our masters are preparing us for
war with Russia. All those people who keep saying 'war is coming', 'prepare for World War
III', etc., you do realize that your life will be over, along with everyone you know, and ...
human civilization?
When I read
this hysterical panegyric on Observer.com (or at least as much of it as I could stomach),
I couldn't help but think of the Hate Week speech delivered by an Inner
Party member in the movie version of George Orwell's 1984 !
It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one
of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and
pure propaganda outlets. The only "waking up" that I see anywhere is among those few
that are neither progressive or conservative, and they are waking up to a nightmare. I am
glad this is all talking - if fur truly starts flying, there isn't anywhere to hide from all
this.
It's straight out of Bernays - just keep doubling down and throwing it up all over the
media outlets. I get ashamed that critical thinking exists only in a few places like MOA. Yet
even here, people seem to divide themselves right along the lines that all this claptrap
designates at times.
All you need to sort this out is a simple exercise in "cui bono", same as ever - and
Russia had nothing to gain, even in the intel arena.
Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because
this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same
position for nearly a century.
Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for
declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that.
This post suggest that one of the motivation fro the attack can be connected with imlications
for GB of Steele dossier fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... Ironically, while I think the notion that the Russian authorities would have organised this kind of attack now is peculiarly preposterous, I think there are a very large number of suspects -- including both state actors and some non-state. So, for example, Ukrainian oligarchs would very likely be in a position to organise such an operation. ..."
"... A possible element in the story is that both 'BuzzFeed' and Christopher Steele face very serious potential problems in lawsuits relating to the 'dossier.' Both have been sued by Aleksej Gubarev and XBT, while the former also has to face actions from the Alfa oligarchs, Michael Cohen, and Carter Page. ..."
"... The best way of avoiding a disaster for both 'BuzzFeed' and Steele -- which could have large knock-on implications -- may be to reinforce the already prevalent climate of hysteria, so that even the most preposterous claims in the dossier can be made to seem reasonable. ..."
Ironically, while I think the notion that the Russian authorities would have organised
this kind of attack now is peculiarly preposterous, I think there are a very large number of
suspects -- including both state actors and some non-state. So, for example, Ukrainian
oligarchs would very likely be in a position to organise such an operation.
Moreover, if they did, the British authorities would have very little option but to cover
up for them.
One thing which is striking me forcibly is the way that the claims about a long history of
assassinations of 'dissidents' in the UK in the 'investigation' by 'BuzzFeed' last June, of
which the centrepiece was a long piece entitled 'From Russia With Blood' are now being
recycled all over the place.
A possible element in the story is that both 'BuzzFeed' and Christopher Steele face very
serious potential problems in lawsuits relating to the 'dossier.' Both have been sued by
Aleksej Gubarev and XBT, while the former also has to face actions from the Alfa oligarchs,
Michael Cohen, and Carter Page.
The best way of avoiding a disaster for both 'BuzzFeed' and Steele -- which could have
large knock-on implications -- may be to reinforce the already prevalent climate of hysteria,
so that even the most preposterous claims in the dossier can be made to seem reasonable.
I think the problem goes well beyond the foreign policy establishment and most definitely
includes the generals and a variety of other people and institutions in and out of
government.
While BHO did restrain some of the aggression that we are now seeing, I suspect that the
Deep State was confident that HRC or some Team R muppet (Jeb!) would win the next election,
so all they had to do was bide their time.
"... Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ..."
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his
life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked (by a Russian sounding chemical weapon
Novichok), and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism
( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk – Craig Murray has
been most viciously attacked for not accepting the official story without any evidence) and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Rattlesnakes have a terrible reputation. Here were I live, in Florida, we have the biggest
rattlesnakes on the planet, the Eastern Diamondback (
Crotalus adamanteus ). They are huge and can reach well over 2m (6ft) in length and
weigh up to 15kg (30lbs). The Eastern Diamondback's venom is not the most potent out there, but
they can deliver *a lot* of it. So, yes, it is a formidable creature. But it is also a gentle
creature and truly very shy one.
Eastern Diamonbacks are also a stunningly beautiful creatures. I confess that I absolutely
love them.
For all their reputation for nastiness, Eastern Diamonbacks will never ever attack you if
they can avoid it . I have seen a lot of these snakes on my hikes, I have manipulated them
(with a hook), and I have seen my German Shepherd come nose to nose with one (literally) and
that Eastern Diamondback did not strike. Why? Because these snakes will do everything they can
to avoid having to bite you.
First and foremost, they hide. Really well. You can stand right next to a large Eastern
Diamondback and never notice it. You can walk right by, and it won't move, or rattle its tail,
and you will never know that it was there. Camouflage is their first line of defense.
Then, if discovered, they will rattle their tails. If needed, very loudly. You can easily
hear the rattle from an Eastern Diamondback from 5m (15ft) away. More than enough distance to
easily avoid it.
Furthermore, if given the chance, the Eastern Diamondback will retreat and hide.
Finally, when cornered a lot of them try what is called a "dry bite": they do bite you, but
deliver no venom. Why? Because you are not prey, so what would be the point of envenomating
you? The Eastern Diamondback does not want you dead, it wants you to let it live!
I was once told by a park ranger in Arizona that the profile of a typical rattlesnake bite
victim is: white, male, with tattoos and the famous last words " hold my beer and watch
this! ".
Why am I telling you all this?
Because that is exactly what I see happening before my horrified eyes.
Russia is the Eastern Diamondback desperately trying to do all it can to avoid to have to
strike. The West is the drunk idiot full of hubris, arrogance and a very mistaken sense of
invulnerability saying " hold my beer and watch this! ".
Keep in mind that in a confrontation with a drunken human the Eastern Diamondback is most
unlikely to survive. And it knows that, and that is why it does everything it can to avoid such
a confrontation in the first place. But if cornered or attacked the Diamondback will strike.
Hard. Want to see what such a strike looks like?
Well I said: "I hope that this is true but I cannot discount the other possibility that Trump has once again been fooled by
the intelligence and the media into appointing a tool of the deep state to replace Tillerson. He was fooled in Syria and the World
applauded or rather the World media applauded loudly. Hopefully he was not fooled by that contrived story. If that is the case
then it is bad news for all of us and might lead to further hostilities against Russia."
Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk who will align to blame Russia for the attack on
Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Further he has been a strong critic of the nuclear deal with Iran forged under Obama and has
also been a strong republican supporter of every republican strategy for national defense including keeping Guantanamo Bay open
indefinitely etc. This would support my doubts that the appointment of Secretary of State Pompeo would do much to ratchet down
international tensions in the hot spots around the World where the US has chosen to portray our "enemies" as military targets
to be conquered rather than other nations with their own sovereign rights to be dealt with through diplomacy.
The most alarming idea is to launch a war with Iran since they have negotiated a nuclear disarmament strategy with the Obama
administration leaving them in a precarious situation of being vulnerable to a change in strategy by the US of negotiation towards
a threat of armed force intervention coming from the US. Trump calls the Iran deal a terrible deal and so does Pompeo. How it
is a terrible deal seems to be the same accusation that the US launched against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is only a terrible
deal for Iran as it was for Iraq to believe that they could disarm under UN supervision in the hopes it would prevent an attack
by the US.
I fear that the lessons of the potential new anti Iranian strategy to cancel out our deals with Iran will only convince the
North Koreans that any pursuit of a peace with the USA will ultimately result in our reneging on the deal at the first arrival
of our stated goals to get NK to disarm and will turn on them even if they comply with western demands that they must dismantle
their nuclear arsenals.
The Iranian Nuclear deal is in peril with the appointment of Pompeo and the result will be that North Korea will see no advantage
in cooperating with an adversary which on the one hand forges peace treaties and on the other hand revokes them by the politically
shifting winds in Washington headed by a president who cannot see the forest from the trees and is easily influenced by people
he "connects with" as though that is reason enough to surround himself with those people and appoint them to high positions.
The politically shifting instability in Washington with the firings of high officials alone would be reason enough for any
foreign nation to doubt the credibility of any policy being put forth. Stability is what is essential to create the foundation
for trust. Without an honest and consistent foreign policy it will be impossible to gain the trust of foreign leaders. As long
as the administration is led by the nose by the media and acts in unpredictable ways there can be no shared basis for trust which
is essential for peace.
What we have in Washington is the expansion of domestic political unrest and the contention of our national elections flaring
over into blame of foreign influences and the externalization of blame for our current sociopolitical divide.
This is the fertile ground laced with the fertilizer for war or at the least a military buildup to war.
There is no greater threat than a World Superpower nation that shifts almost weekly on its policies and has open disputes with
its appointed leaders which results in that nation repeatedly reshuffling the cards and changing its positions on foreign policy.
I pray that the current leadership will come to grips with its own internal struggles and find a reasoned path towards maintaining
the fragile peace that we all depend on.
"... There is no proof that the Russians were responsible and there is ample circumstantial evidence that there have been similar attempts many former governments to conduct false flag operations to create the appearance of enemy involvement in crimes boosted by the media in a rush to judgement where the home government would benefit from a story blaming the enemy state for deeds they were responsible for. Do you think we are not capable of the same crimes we routinely accuse other nations of? Do you believe every news story you hear and call every dissenting voice fake? ..."
"... The question of who benefits from the accusations that Russia was behind the gassing of Sergei Skripal and his daughter lies at the heart of the question of who really benefits from the news blitzes like the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter? ..."
"... Again, who benefits? Are the Russians benefiting from this assassination attempt? I think not. They are now corralled by the western press as having committed one more grievous crime. Why would they do this? Would their reasons be to empower the west to vilify them? Would they time their attack precisely at a time when the British were questioning their decision to exit the European Union was being called into question? How would their decision to unite against a Russian threat influence their decision? ..."
"... That's how you kill him if you want to frame the Russian state for the death. ..."
"... "Putindiditism" is definitely the new plague sweeping the West, infecting everyone, who was once able to think straight but is now incapable of critical thinking or even common sense. ..."
There is no bigger paid fake news than our commercial news corporations which will soon be able to propagandize us free of
the Internet Neutrality rules which allow free discourse and debate thanks to the FCC ruling to end Net Neutrality which will
end free speech for the tiny so called "fake news" sites like this. Fake only in the fact they counter the main stream propaganda.
Admittedly you have found a hole in the story with some speculation being proposed by the author that connections to the Steele
Report and the proximity of some supposed British nerve gas factory plays into the story. It is fake news as far as speculation
that the British were involved since there is no proof of that either but how as that different from the fact free accusations
that the Russians were responsible?
Personally I agree that the allegations that the British were behind it are unfounded but so are the allegations that Russia
was behind it. It is a rush to find guilt on both sides unsupported by evidence and deserving its day in a court of law,
There is no proof that the Russians were responsible and there is ample circumstantial evidence that there have been similar
attempts many former governments to conduct false flag operations to create the appearance of enemy involvement in crimes boosted
by the media in a rush to judgement where the home government would benefit from a story blaming the enemy state for deeds they
were responsible for. Do you think we are not capable of the same crimes we routinely accuse other nations of? Do you believe
every news story you hear and call every dissenting voice fake?
The purpose of this site is to examine the all too real possibilities that our own governments are capable of perpetrating
the same kinds of lies that our publicly announced "enemies" are accused as responsible for and to call into question their own
motives for doing so.
The question of who benefits from the accusations that Russia was behind the gassing of Sergei Skripal and his daughter
lies at the heart of the question of who really benefits from the news blitzes like the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter?
The article may be flawed with speculations but the underlying question remains "Who Benefits" Surely it is not the Russians
who could have killed Sergei Skripal many years ago if they felt the need to kill him. They surely had ample means to do so being
a world superpower and master at spying and controlling their assets.
It is the fault of our judgement and our ability to understand how international relations are controlled to not see how we
can easily be fooled by a disinformation campaign aimed at aligning our nations around a guilty verdict based on false evidence.
Again, who benefits? Are the Russians benefiting from this assassination attempt? I think not. They are now corralled by
the western press as having committed one more grievous crime. Why would they do this? Would their reasons be to empower the west
to vilify them? Would they time their attack precisely at a time when the British were questioning their decision to exit the
European Union was being called into question? How would their decision to unite against a Russian threat influence their decision?
Clearly there is more to this story than meets the eye and clearly there is much to be gained by creating a foreign enemy to
rally the people.
So what is the risk? The risk is that by marginalizing the Russians and constantly keeping them out in the cold (war) the West
will face an renewed existential threat and will only exacerbate tensions with a fully nuclear armed Russia.
This is great news for the arms manufacturers. They will reap giant profits as we descend into Cold War II.
So really you should be asking yourself who benefits and the only answer that is reasonable is the arms manufacturers and the
military.
The agitation on the western side for blaming Russia for everything is economically motivated for profit.
That much is not speculation.
Realist , March 14, 2018 at 3:39 am
If the Russians wanted him dead he would have died of a tragic accident, due to mindless street violence, or of an armed robbery
gone wrong years ago, not ritually assassinated on the public square using a military grade "weapon of mass destruction" made
only at highly secured government facilities (like the shop down the street). That's how you kill him if you want to frame
the Russian state for the death.
mrtmbrnmn , March 13, 2018 at 11:43 pm
"Putindiditism" is definitely the new plague sweeping the West, infecting everyone, who was once able to think straight
but is now incapable of critical thinking or even common sense. Teresa May sounds as demented and desperate as our own Queen
of You Owe Me during her failing campaign. "Highly likely" are Intelligence (duh) Community weasel words for "we're makin' this
sh– up".
However, had the Sore Loser won, we might have been spared all these fairy tales and connivings and cut straight to Operation
Barbarossa 2018. The true cold hearts' desire of all these berserkers and their fellow travelers barreling helter-skelter down
the highway to hell and dragging the rest of us with them. What is to be done??
"... The US undoubtedly hopes to get all of NATO to respond to an attack by Russia on the US in a country that the US is illegally occupying. I dunno. All the old colonial powers in Europe are pretty much US lapdogs. so it's hard to say what they'll do. ..."
"... Whether that message be a straightforward one by Russia that traitors always pay in the end, or a double-game, "false flag" one by the U.K. or U.S. to make it look like Russia, or some even more convoluted scenario – it's still more about communication than killing. ..."
I think it is much much worse than what you are suggesting. I think the governmental actor in question is either the US or
the UK. Most likely the US with the UK as co-conspirator. It strikes me as odd that not only the Skripals but also Litvinenko
who was murdered on British soil with polonium 210, another governmental action only weapon.
While on the one hand, these chemical/nuclear agents were known to be possessed by Russia, that doesn't mean that they weren't
also possessed by us.
The US military would want samples of the nerve agent to work on possible antidotes and defenses. Polonium 210 is just an element.
It can be made by anybody who has a research nuclear reactor.
The US is (unsuccessfully so far) attempting to isolate Russia as they prosecute their pursuit of ousting the elected government
of Syria.
My take is that we are working up to attacking the government of Syria to protect "our" "moderate" rebel scum in Syria.
And we won't have any kind of UN resolution to misinterpret. I don't know how we're going to try to spin it but look for an
attack in Ghouta sometime soon.
The US is trying to forestall a Russian response but the Russians have come out and said that an attack by the US would result
in a Russian response.
The US undoubtedly hopes to get all of NATO to respond to an attack by Russia on the US in a country that the US is illegally
occupying. I dunno. All the old colonial powers in Europe are pretty much US lapdogs. so it's hard to say what they'll do.
David G , March 13, 2018 at 2:20 pm
"The obfuscations of the British reinforce in [sic] the view that Skripal was dangerous to the anti-Trump forces and the authorities
therefore sought to have them removed."
If it is true (and I don't take it as proved at this point) that an ultra-powerful, military nerve agent that nobody is supposed
to even possess in 2018 was employed here, then whoever is responsible was trying to send a message, not just kill somebody unsuccessfully
kill, for that matter, at least so far.
Whether that message be a straightforward one by Russia that traitors always pay in the end, or a double-game, "false flag"
one by the U.K. or U.S. to make it look like Russia, or some even more convoluted scenario – it's still more about communication
than killing. That's because anybody with the resources to get hold of this exotic toxin could easily have killed Skripal
in a more mundane (and reliable) manner, if that was their primary goal.
Therefore, I disagree with James O'Neill's hypothesis that this was somebody trying to silence Skripal because of the Steele
dossier: if that were the case, we'd have a dead victim and a conventional cause of death, albeit possibly made to look like an
accident or suicide.
Linda Wood , March 13, 2018 at 6:54 pm
David G, your point here is really important.
If it is true that an ultra-powerful, military nerve agent that nobody is supposed to even possess in 2018 was employed
here, then whoever is responsible was trying to send a message, not just kill somebody it's still more about communication
than killing. That's because anybody with the resources to get hold of this exotic toxin could easily have killed Skripal in
a more mundane (and reliable) manner, if that was their primary goal.
Not only does the use of such a toxin identify the killer as a government actor, whether Russian or U.S. or UK, it sends the
message that whoever it is, they are dangerous, lawless, and willing to take the risk, knowing they have identified themselves
as one of very few possible actors.
Just as the note in the anthrax attack stated, "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX", the question we have to ask in response is a kind of
John le Carre quote: Who is speaking here?
alley cat , March 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm
There are infinite ways to eliminate someone without using a chemical that can be traced directly to you. The only operators
who would use Novichok would be those trying to fan the flames of hysteria against Russia. The idea that Russians would deliberately
incriminate themselves in this manner when they had nothing to gain by it doesn't even pass the straight-face test.
Israel Shamir posted an article on Unz Review that ties Putin's speech on March 1 with the growing threats by U.S. leaders
to intervene militarily in Syria if the Syrian government "uses chemical weapons again." As if the Syrian government had any motive
to use chemical weapons when it has all but won the war.
The Russians have contemptuously dismissed the absurd allegations against the Syrian government, and will do the same with
respect to the allegations of Russian complicity in the assassination of Skripal.
But the military balance of power has shifted since Putin's latest speech. The Russian president has now drawn a line in the
sand by giving U.S. leaders a clear warning that Russia has the capability to put a quick end to illegal U.S. meddling in Syria,
and the will to do so.
Only complete, deluded, fools would doubt Putin's resolve. Thank God humanity is safe, since the people running the U.S. are
all level-headed, intelligent, and reasonable.
"The formula in a book you can buy on Amazon for 30 bucks, the stuff's not listed the OPCW's list of deadly nerve agents, to
the stuff being stored in the former Soviet states, but Russia being the only one of those former Soviet states that destroyed
their stockpiles of chemical & bio weapons – to the satisfaction of the OPCW, no less, 'Hallelujah' statements, and all.
The United States and Uzbekistan have quietly negotiated and are expected to sign a bilateral agreement today to provide American
aid in dismantling and decontaminating one of the former Soviet Union's largest chemical weapons testing facilities, according
to Defense Department and Uzbek officials.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon informed Congress that it intends to spend up to $6 million under its Cooperative Threat Reduction
program to demilitarize the so-called Chemical Research Institute, in Nukus, Uzbekistan. Soviet defectors and American officials
say the Nukus plant was the major research and testing site for a new class of secret, highly lethal chemical weapons called "Novichok,"
which in Russian means "new guy."
Let us guess who got full access to the equipment, technical documentation and all those agents
Where is Christopher Steele? did he not have means and motive and oportunity ?
Why has the russians not highlighted these connections after all the daughter is a russian citizen she has to be somewhere
in hospital or kidnapped in a safe house.
Does not the russian embassy have a right to make sure this young lady is safe and happy to stay at her new porton down home.
And look what got announced today problem reaction solution new investments new buildings for the chemical weapons facilities
at porton down what a concy dink 50 million for what testing dodgy sim samples .
"... Clearly the brits were out to get Trump via Steele. That has been a long term objective as Trump is not an 'authorzed' agent for the deep, dependable State. ..."
"... Either the Russophobes are so deluded by their fear and hatred or they are intentional set on a course of action that could result in nuclear war. http://viewsandstories.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/russian-to-judgement.html ..."
Clearly the brits were out to get Trump via Steele. That has been a long term objective as Trump is not an 'authorzed'
agent for the deep, dependable State.
Skripal is too well informed and deeply dangerous to be alive now. I guess the unexpected survival issue can be sorted out
soon enough. So there you go, fail in afghanistan, iran, iraq, syria, USA, where next for the Brits? fail in the EU. They certainly
fail in the believeabilty challenge.
Nop , March 14, 2018 at 10:44 am
Frankly, this false flag is so blatantly gauche that I suspect it's something the Ukraine cooked up.
It is perhaps telling that the media coverage is clearly designed to obscure rather than reveal. The Russian to judgement in
this has obvious parallels with the situation immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Here's a thought: maybe the Soviet Union looked into the manufacture of these "novichoks" but decided that, nah, they don't work
all that well in practice e.g. mixing the binary components in the field isn't an exact science, so the end result can range from
Instant Death to Oh, Shit, Nobody Has Died And A Lot Of Innocents Are In Hospital.
Utterly unacceptable for any respectable KGB agent.
But some of the dudes who were working on those "novichoks" (dudes now out of work, remember) defected to the West with some
diagrams and some tall tales of how stupendously clever they are and how astonishingly lethal their wares.
So places like Porton Down test the chemistry in the laboratory and, sure enough, under lab conditions the chemistry is astonishingly
lethal.
They don't test it in the field because, well, why would they?
Fast forward to this week, and Someone has the Bright Idea to use some "novichoks" in a false-flag operation.
Why not? Everyone tells them that they are astonishingly lethal, and the lab tests back that up. What could go wrong?
So they do, and they find out what the Soviets found out decades ago.
Which is that this stuff is utter shit under field conditions: your target's don't die an instant death and innocent people
who come to their aid get very, very sick.
Because that is the point that everyone in the MSM won't talk about: if this was supposed to be a hit then it was badly botched.
The nerve agent didn't kill, the assassins didn't *confirm* the kill, the radius of the effect wasn't contained, and other people
were contaminated.
Hardly the hallmarks of an agency that DEVELOPED this nerve agent, is it. But maybe the hallmark of no-hopers who didn't really
understand what they were using.
In the whole comment section there was only one commenter acidbot66 who questioned the windown of this false flag British operation.
This particular commenter despite annoing use of ALL CAPS provides interesting line of arguments including the following: " British
experts investigating the case are FROM THE VERY SAME AGENCY who advised Blair to go to WAR against Iraq on NON EXISTING Chemical weapons
of mass destruction."
Four year of war propaganda took toll on US people if you assume that WaPo attract a special type of commenters ;-)
Prime Minister Theresa May announced Wednesday that her government will expel 23 Russian diplomats from Britain. It will be the
biggest expulsion of Russian diplomats from the country since 1985 -- marking a return to the large-scale diplomatic ejections that
took place during the Cold War.
...May's government lists 58 Russian diplomats in Britain, which means that almost 40 percent of them are being expelled.
county kerry 2 hours ago
Why poison , instead of a knife or gun ?
acidbot66
If Russians wanted to be known they would live a Putin's picture on the scene.
acidbot66
The British believes it is more Sensationalist
and will catch more audience...
(Edited)
Decisions CANNOT be emotional. Hard evidence is required in ANY COURT of law. ANYONE MUST act according to international LAW not
emotion or some sort of RUSSOPHOBIA so often affecting Americans and its European cronies.
NO ONE can be condemned based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and that is in ANY CIVILIZED nation on this planet!
Although Russians may be involved HARD evidence MUST be presented BEFORE the judgment!
acidbot66 3 hours ago (Edited)
Nothing has been VERIFIED you IDIOT.
Nothing has been PROVEN as yet...
Not even VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE have been presented!
Evidences come before judgment, RIGHT?
Is this the way it works in Britain?
acidbot66, 15 minutes ago
No Proof. No Evidence.
That should be the national Motto of Russia.
Russia is as guilty as Sin and y0u know it BORIS. 3 hours ago "freedoms that democracy brings"
You mean like the "FREEDOMS" exposed by Edward Snowden?
Or the "FREEDOMS" for the military to MURDER innocents as disclosed by Julian Assange?
YOU ARE JOKING US ALL!
marph 3 hours ago
Theresa May's wonderful smoke screen would leave behind the toxic Brexit impact off the headlines. In a volatile world that
we need alliances and not isolations.
Beside that, a hypocrite Conservative administration should in fact ban receiving donations from Russia.
As it was reported that since 2010, the Conservative party has received more than $5m donation from Russian oligarch and their
linked businesses, what a bunch of hypocrite...
"... The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow. ..."
"... The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow. ..."
"... Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it. ..."
After days of hysteria and of mounting speculation, and after having stoked up by her
statement on Monday expectations of stern action against Russia to stratospheric levels,
Theresa May produced a package of 'sanctions' today which do no more than expose the weakness
of Britain's hand.
The expulsion of 23 diplomats – who have one week to leave
Increased checks on private flights, customs and freight
The freezing of Russian state assets where there is evidence they may be used to threaten
the life or property of UK nationals or residents
Ministers and Royal Family to boycott the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year
The suspension of all planned high level bi-lateral contacts between the UK and
Russia
Note that none of these sanctions include any of the supposedly draconian steps which have
been spoken about over the last few days.
Theresa May for example appeared to rule out a blanket visa ban and sweeping asset freezes
on wealthy Russians coming to London. It is clear that ideas for a boycott by the England team
of the World Cup in Russia and for the complete severing of diplomatic relations with Russia
have been abandoned if they were ever considered.
Reports in the media have also confirmed that the idea of launching a cyber attack against
Russia has been ruled out, since the British quietly acknowledge that Russia has immeasurably
greater cyber resources with which to retaliate than Britain does.
As to whether or not Ofcom will now strip RT of its broadcasting licence, Maria Zakharova's
threat to expel
all British media outlets from Russia is having a chilling effect, with the British media
apparently now quietly lobbying the British government against doing it.
By way of example, The Times of
London , the newspaper which has been leading the British media's offensive against RT, now
has this to say, tucked away at the bottom of a meandering editorial with the woolly and
meaningless headline 'An Unstable World'
The Kremlin has threatened to expel British journalists from Moscow should London shut
down the Russian propaganda channel RT. That would be ill advised. Britain stands for nothing
if not free speech. Mrs May should stick to the evidence in the Skripal case, identifying the
culprits and bringing maximum international force to bear to punish them personally.
It is interesting to see how the British media suddenly discovers free speech also applies
to Russian media when its own interests are threatened.
It is still possible that Ofcom may follow up on its threats against RT, but that is now
looking rather less likely.
As for the measures Theresa May announced today not only will they not affect Russia in the
slightest, but they are actually counterproductive.
The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from
London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow.
Since Russia is by far the more powerful country, it is the British who need to maintain a
strong diplomatic presence in Moscow to retain relevance. By contrast Russia, as a Great Power,
has no need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Britain, which is nowadays a second or
even third rank power.
The reciprocal expulsions which are now going to happen will not therefore affect Russia's
position as a Great Power in the slightest. They will however further marginalise the British
in international diplomacy.
The same is true of the British decision to sever bilateral contacts with Russia.
Apart from Boris Johnson's recent ill-starred to Moscow, there have in fact been barely any
bilateral contacts between the Russian and British governments for years, even though it is
again Britain as the weaker country which needs these contacts in order to retain relevance,
not Russia.
As it happens I expect the Russians to greet the news that they are going to be spared
further meetings with Boris Johnson with a quiet sigh of relief.
As for Boris Johnson himself, how he hopes to cut an important figure in international
diplomacy when he is now prevented from visiting Moscow – the capital of one of the
world's Great Powers – by his own government, completely escapes me. The reality is that
no one takes him seriously anyway.
The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for
the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow.
Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy
promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do
in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it.
Adam
Exhilarating to see the establishment cage rattled.
Projection being the psychological flaw of choice for Tories, one could surmise you yourself
might be trying to get lecture income, Craig is not touting for business here. In fact he is
only surfacing on this blog when establishment lies reach the level of preposterous –
dangerous .It was so completely obvious that Mrs May was lying today to parliament that Jeremy
Corbyn refused to corroborate her lies. If she had said something reasonable, such as ' we are
unable to identify the poison or attribute blame, then the leader of the opposition light have
agreed with her suspicions. But she lied, like Blair over Iraqi wmd.
She and her bunch of Tory war criminals who have used Islamist terror in Libya Syria and
Iraq have used highly emotive language today. Rather strange for a party that is propped up
only by bribing the DUP. Even more strange to find you on the wrong side of history, the Mr
Hyde side.
" Plus, there are several plausible motives for the Russian government to have not
only conducted an attack, but conducted one which could be traced back to them by the West
and denied with some plausibility to their "electorate", aiding an embattled Putin who has
an election to rig on Sunday after having spent a lot of money on war while halving the
Russian GDP, and asserting "Russian strength" on the world stage. "
I have an open mind as to who did it, so if you can describe a plausible Russian motive
I'd be interested. And you don't persuade me that there is one. Putin does not have to
"rig" the election. He will win more than 60% because he has mass support, and the
candidate who comes second will probably get less than 10%. That's not because of
ballot-stuffing and nobody in Russia seriously thinks it is. His electoral propaganda (I've
looked at "light grey" stuff, i.e. not with his campaign's stamp but most people know it's
from them) is focusing on turnout. The idea that another candidate might win is literally
(and I mean literally) presented as a joke. Yes this is probably a bit good for Putin
internally, but probably not as much as it is for the Tory minority government internally.
From a Russian point of view I doubt it would be worth jeopardising business relations with
Britain for.
On Russian GDP you are more than 20 years out of date. It halved in the 1990s and then
recovered and soared. It's about 3% lower than it was in 2015 now.
What is this "world stage" you refer to? When people talk about propaganda I always ask
"to which market?" Do you think everyone would ostracise Russia at international meetings
if they don't do an occasional Georgy Markov job in Britain?
I'll help you, though. If you want a plausible Russian motive, here is one: they,
like the leaders of other major countries, know war is coming .
Of course that would also make it plausibly a British action, or indeed the action of a
third country.
" I don't think you have the means to completely discount the possibility that this
is indeed another Russian assassination (and it's not like they haven't murdered people
on British soil before) "
Agreed it could have been a Russian attempted assassination. (Fortunately, as far as we
know, nobody has died from this attack yet.) But how long is your list of assassinations
that you believe have been carried out in Britain by the Russian government?
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's only
chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an
extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was
scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents,
'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the
'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)
Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents.
Royal Society of Chemistry
Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance
which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its
existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin.
Given Dr Black's publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.
The world's international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black's opinion. The
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In
2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German
and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:
[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover
all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new
toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk
to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to "Novichoks". The name "Novichok" is used in a
publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve
agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient
information to comment on the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013)
OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for
the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013
Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of "novichoks" that it decided –
with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned
list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on "novichoks"
but doubts he succeeded.
"... If your country becomes a haven for dodgy people, like Berezovsky, then dodgy things are likely to happen. ..."
"... In some ways on the political right the neocons are more dominant than they are in the US. The Murdoch empire controls a huge chunk of the right leaning media and pumps out the usual tropes, with the added hysteria of the tabloid press of this country. Sadly we saw the replacement of Emily Blunt's uncle Crispin as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a realist replaced by fellow Conservative but Zionist Tughendat. The neocons and the Blairites have the numbers in the Commons. ..."
"... On the left they have been traumatised by the election of Trump and the vote for Brexit. They have dutifully followed the Russia smokescreen of the Democrats in the US. ..."
"... Here, the 1914 analogy can be seen in the rapid insistence that friends and allies of Britain must also stand tall and denounce the Russians - evidence be damned - lest the alliance crumble. ..."
"... This will permit the "unlawfull chemical weapon attack" meme to grow just as Russiagate has done, with unproven allegations presented as settled fact, requiring "action" in response. ..."
"... Further, by this reaction, the British government has assured the investigation into whatever happened will be politicized, and that any information countering the government's charges will be suppressed so to prevent a loss of face. ..."
There are more unsavoury types who have fallen foul of the law and/or the Kremlin who then
base themselves in London. If your country becomes a haven for dodgy people, like
Berezovsky, then dodgy things are likely to happen.
In some ways on the political right the neocons are more dominant than they are in the
US. The Murdoch empire controls a huge chunk of the right leaning media and pumps out the
usual tropes, with the added hysteria of the tabloid press of this country. Sadly we saw the
replacement of Emily Blunt's uncle Crispin as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select
Committee, a realist replaced by fellow Conservative but Zionist Tughendat. The neocons and
the Blairites have the numbers in the Commons.
On the left they have been traumatised by the election of Trump and the vote for
Brexit. They have dutifully followed the Russia smokescreen of the Democrats in the US.
Crucially though Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party and continues to poll well.
Blairites, the press and the Israelis have launched an unrelenting campaign to unseat him and
damage him electorally. This has not worked, Israel looks to have lost the political left. If
you thought Trump was pro Russia, anti-interventionist and NATO skeptical then Corbyn is even
mores so, with the added bonus of being fiercely critical of Israel.
Finally we have also seen continuing cuts to the defence budget, The military industrial
complex has been eagerly jumping on the Russia bandwagon to try to stop this.
Add in the Saudi/Arab lobby and Syria and it is a perfect storm. The hysteria is because
they are losing, not winning.
I'll add two articles on the Skripal affair that I like.
May's British government is in a weak position domestically, with the fear and loathing of
Corbyn motivating a certain hysteria since last years snap election. What has transpired this
week appears direct from the Thatcher playbook. What is stunning is, for all the bluster,
they have reached a verdict without a trial, without any evidence at all of an "attempted
murder", without even being able to explain what happened. To then wrap their denunciations
in the banner of standing tall for "our values" and sticking up for the "rules-based system"
while trampling on the logic and procedure of the basic justice system - that's just crazy
and rather thoughtless.
Here, the 1914 analogy can be seen in the rapid insistence that friends and allies of
Britain must also stand tall and denounce the Russians - evidence be damned - lest the
alliance crumble.
This will permit the "unlawfull chemical weapon attack" meme to grow just as
Russiagate has done, with unproven allegations presented as settled fact, requiring "action"
in response.
Further, by this reaction, the British government has assured the investigation into
whatever happened will be politicized, and that any information countering the government's
charges will be suppressed so to prevent a loss of face.
Unfortunately, although the pieces by both Séamus Martin and Craig Murray to which
you link are much better than most MSM coverage, among many problems with them is the rather
basic one that both accept without question an unproven assumption that is fundamental to the
whole British case against Russia over Skripal – that a class of lethal CW called
'Novichoks' actually exists.
A relevant post has just appeared on the site of a 'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and
Media' recently set up by a group of British academics. It is co-authored by Paul McKeigue,
Professor of Statistical Genetics and Genetic Epidemiology at Edinburgh University, and Piers
Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism' at Sheffield University,
and is entitled 'Doubts about "Novichoks".'
In the Commons on 12 March, Theresa May claimed that 'world-leading experts at the Defence
Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down have established that Skripal was poisoned
with one of a 'group of nerve agents known as Novichok,' developed by Russia.
Until recently the head of the detection laboratory at Porton Down was Dr Robin Black. As
McKeigue and Robinson note, back in 2016 this 'world-leading expert' on chemical weapons
– he really is that – published a chapter in a book on 'Chemical Warfare
Toxicology' entitled 'Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare
Agents.'
The link to this at the site of the Royal Society of Chemistry is at the end of the piece
by McKeigue and Robinson – a free download if one registers. I would very strongly
recommend the whole chapter to anyone seriously interested in getting to grips with issues to
do with chemical weapons, as it provides an authoritative account accessible to those without
a scientific background.
Of particular interest in relation to May's accusations against Russia is the fact that
Black specifically states that the existence of the Russian programme to which she refers was
unconfirmed as of his writing:
'In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the "Foliant" programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.'
What he is suggesting is that in the course of the – OPCW-monitored –
destruction of the Russian chemical weapons programme, no evidence emerged confirming the
claims by Mirzayanov. For this to be consistent with the Prime Minister's claims, some pretty
radical assumptions have to be introduced.
As McKeigue and Robinson also note, a similar scepticism was expressed in a March 2013
report by the Scientific Advisory Board on the OPCW – again, the link is in the
'Working Group' document:
'[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover
all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new
toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk
to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to "Novichoks". The name "Novichok" is used in a
publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve
agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient
information to comment on the existence or properties of "Novichoks".'
Of course, it is possible that, since Dr Black wrote, both Porton Down and the OPCW have
received conclusive evidence vindicating the claims by Mirzayanov. It is even just remotely
conceivable – very remotely conceivable – that all these people are part of a
conspiracy to cover the devastating information revealed by Mirzayanov. But those who want to
argue this owe us at least an attempt to provide a coherent account of how this might be
so.
And then, it has to be born in mind that there is a long history of people in the West
accepting, without critical examination, claims from 'dissidents' and 'defectors' from the
former Soviet Union and now Russia.
In this connection, I would refer people to two reports from Judith Miller. One, from 1999
in the 'New York Times', is entitled 'U.S. and Uzbeks Agree on Chemical Arms Plant Cleanup'.
It both accepts Mirzayanov's claim's at face value, and suggests American officials also did
this.
Another, published yesterday in the 'City Journal' is entitled 'Chemical Weapons are Back,
Thanks to Russia; The banned agents are increasingly being used for assassination and
terror.'
The 'City Journal' is an outlet with which I was unfamiliar. At first glance, and
particular in the light of their publishing Judith Miller, it seems to me it might usefully
be retitled 'Still useful idiots, after all these years, and proud of it', or 'Inside the
bubble, and terrified of having it pricked.'
If this seems extreme, have a look at her article.
Compounding the confusion is the fact that various Russians quoted repudiating Theresa
May's accusations have not denied that the 'Novichoks' programme existed. In general, these
seem to me to be people who could not be expected to have a grasp of the detailed history of
the Soviet chemical weapons programme, and this would not be the first time that such figures
have opened their big mouths in response to questionable accusations and in so doing given
these unmerited credibility.
However, these are not matters which need to be prejudged. What we clearly need is
clarification about the actual state of the evidence about 'Novichoks' from people who are
well-informed, both on the Western and Russian sides. Maybe if some people in the Western MSM
actually did some journalism, as it used to be understood, we might get it.
It would not be sufficient to establish Russian responsibility to establish that the
programme to create 'Novichoks' actually existed, but it would seem rather close to a
necessary condition. Until the problems raised by McKeigue and Robinson are cleared up, it
really is premature to conduct any discussion of the Skripal poisoning on the basis of the
assumption that it did.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to see what possible grounds there can be for the apparent
reluctance of the British to supply the Russians with samples for testing.
An intriguing question is raised by the arguments made by McKeigue and Robinson. Clearly
something was tested at Porton Down, and some kind of results produced. If in fact
'Novochoks' do not exist, what was it that was tested, and what were the results?
As with the test results from Porton Down and other laboratories on samples from incidents
where CW have been used in Syria, one comes back to the urgent need to have the actual test
results in the public domain, and the obvious implausibility of claims that 'sources and
methods' considerations mean that this cannot be done.
Incidentally, Professor McKeigue is also the author of what I take to be a highly cogent
demolition of the report of the UN/OPCW 'Joint Investigative Commission', issued last
October, which blamed the Syrian government for the Khan Sheikhoun sarin atrocity, to which I
have referred in earlier comments.
Among other things, his argument provides very strong reasons to suspect that intense
pressure was put on people at the OPCW to collaborate in the cover-up of a 'false flag.' It
thus becomes perfectly natural to ask whether similar pressure may have been put on people at
Porton Down.
The fact that Theresa May simply assumed away the possibility of a 'false flag' would seem
reason at least to a range of possibilities regarding her role – ranging from very
great naivety to actual collusion in a cover-up of a 'false flag.'
If she wants to prove such suspicions are groundless, she should order the disclosure of
the kind of information I have suggested needs to be made public – just as General
Mattis should order the disclosure of the test results relevant to Syrian CW incidents which
publicly available evidence indicates must be available to him.
In all these cases, what we most of all simply need are the charts showing the 'spectra'
of the various compounds identified by the testing processes. It is difficult to see any
cogent 'sources and methods' grounds for not disclosing these. Once they were disclosed, an
informed discussion by people with relevant scientific competence would become possible.
Until they are disclosed, suspicion will be unavoidable that those who do not want to see
them disclosed are afraid of what such informed discussion would reveal.
"... But of course the investigation is a side show in this piece of orchestrated political theater - in much the same way as is Mueller's indictment of Russian trolls, who have no prospect of being brought to trial. God forbid they should actually catch the perpetrator. I'd put money on their being a state actor, just not that state. ..."
Even if Novichok exists, it seems unlikely that it was used here. Supposedly these things are
10x more toxic than VX, in which case anyone exposed to even the smallest quantity of it
would be as dead as a doornail. Yet by some miracle no-one has actually been killed in this
incident.
Thanks for the link to the 'Doubts about "Novichoks"' article, this is very
encouraging. The second point made by the authors is that
"..any organic chemist with a modern lab would be able to synthesize bench scale quantities
of such a compound."
Now Theresa May is not a scientist and may believe that a chemical compound can
be 'Russian'. But you are right to speculate about pressure having been put on the boffins at
Porton Down, as they will know better and seem to be choosing not to say so.
Given that the means in this crime now seems to be open to a far wider range of suspects,
I would hope that the investigation would give at least some consideration to motive and
opportunity. But of course the investigation is a side show in this piece of orchestrated
political theater - in much the same way as is Mueller's indictment of Russian trolls, who
have no prospect of being brought to trial. God forbid they should actually catch the
perpetrator. I'd put money on their being a state actor, just not that state.
i will just say this.. as for dr. robin black - perhaps he is not at liberty to say that
porton down followed the instructions in Mirzanjaov's book 'state secrets' - as b so aptly
puts it ""Russia did it", says Mirzanjaov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK"... either that, or
he knows and is unwilling to state this openly.. i don't know, but what i really want to know
is how does porton down verify it is this novichuk, without ever having been familiar with
it? that part is hard to fathom... and, if it can be reproduced, how can the uk ascertain
with such certainty that it was produced in russia? too many questions remain and the rush to
a conclusion seems really shoddy on the part of the uk leadership...
The hysteria that Russia did it is so total I completely missed that the victims are still
alive. Like CP, I remember Basic Training, with nerve gas, if you didn't get the protective
gear on; you died. This is very very strange. "Newcomer" nerve agents are binaries that are
relative non-toxic but when mixed highly toxic; five times greater than VX. The policeman was
exposed at the house. Yet the victims left home, drove into town, dined and collapsed on the
park bench. I don't see how one mixes Russian military grade nerve agents without chemical
protective gear and respirator and not die instantly. Perhaps someone mixed together an
organophosphate compound in a clandestine laboratory that the victims were exposed to; but,
that completely destroys the PM's narrative.
by Justin Raimondo
Posted on
March 15, 2018 March 14, 2018 The latest example of alleged Russian perfidy – the
poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia – is yet another case of
faith-based attribution. In accusing Russia of some heinous crime – in this instance, the
murder of a former double agent working for MI6 – one needn't present any real evidence:
it's only necessary to point the finger at the Kremlin. And of course we haven't had any real
evidence proffered by the British government: Prime Minister Theresa May simply declared that
Russia is the culprit and gave a midnight deadline for the Kremlin to explain how "
its nerve weapon " – as NBC reported it – was used to attacked Skripal on
British soil. She has since announced the
expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats.
... ... ...
This is a replay of the Litvinenko affair
, which was based on similarly dubious
"evidence.": even the official British government report was ambiguous about Russia's alleged
responsibility for poisoning the exiled anti-Putin propagandist. It says that Putin "
probably approved" the murder.
Probably. No need for exactitude in these matters: after all, we're only talking
about a country with enough nuclear weapons aimed at us – and the Brits – to wipe
out the entire population of the planet. So "probably" is good enough.
Alexander Litvinenko was involved with
all sorts of dubious characters , many of them linked to the Russian Mafia: any one of a
number of these fine fellows could've killed him. As more of Skripal's story comes out, one
suspects that the same will prove true in his case.
That won't stop the War Party from concocting yet another conspiracy theory pointing to the
all-powerful Vladimir Putin as the source of all that's bad in the world.
Don't fall for it: instead, ask the question that's pinned to the top of my
Twitter feed: Where's the evidence ?
Possibility that Skripal flipped again and was killed in such a way as to put all the blame on Russians should not be
discarded. That actually explains why his daughter was hurt.
"In cases like the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the only way to proceed is by identifying the evidence which proves
with certainty, what happened; or failing that, proves with certainty what did not happen.
Perpetrators, co-conspirators, method, motive, intention - all come later, if they come at all..."
John Gilberts @96. One of the first and fundamental rules of natural justice is to hear both sides.
Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other side", or "let the other side
be heard as well". It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the
opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.
On this occasion the Russians are being accused without being presented with any evidence or ability to test the nerve agent
[Lavrov has said this is required under the Chemical weapons convention].
The same thing happened over the claim by the US/UK of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Missiles were sent killing men,
women and children before any investigation was initiated, all contrary to International law. The US/UK are rogue states, Putin
must hit back hard to any further illegal actions against them or their allies in Syria.
Very little attention has so far been directed to Skypal dautgher; her presence has surely added an emotional element but no part
in the plot.
And then it just happen when she came to visit ?
- One first consideration: if it was a vendetta from Vlad why then to wait so many years and acting just when the daugther is
meeting the father ?
- Second point any agent on Russian official (or not) disposal team would have been stricly prohibited to use anything more chemical
than a lead pipe.
- remember this turn coat did it for money, supposedely collaborated on the Steele garbage can for money, so did the daughter
bring somme message from Russia of the bribe and return home specy against informations on the Steele dossier ?
The possibility that British intelligence sent scores of its own agents to almost certain death in occupied Holland during the
Second World War has been raised by the release of Foreign Office files kept secret for 60 years.
The disclosure that more than 50 Dutch agents working for the Special Operations Executive (SOE) may have been sacrificed as
part of a complicated "double double agent" game played against the Germans is likely to provoke heated debate in the Netherlands.
The agents, trained in Britain to carry out sabotage, were parachuted straight into the arms of the waiting enemy, which had
penetrated the entire SOE network in Holland. Almost all were subsequently executed in concentration camps.
in another case
All The King's Men" (Collins, 1988) homosexual Freemason, Deputy Head of MI-6, Sir Claude Dansey (1876-1947.)
Dansey deliberately placed a known german agent, Henri Dericourt, at the heart of the french ressistance Prosper organization.
Dericourt, a French pilot, was responsible for organizing the nighttime shuttling of agents and materiel in and out of France.
in the wake of D-Day June 6, 1944, hundreds of acts of sabotage were committed by the French Resistance -- with one exception.
There were none in the north and north west where they mattered most.
There, the "Prosper" and related "Scientist" networks had been mopped by the Gestapo in 1943. Prosper's courageous young leader,
Francis Anthony Suttill, 34, was languishing in a concentration camp.
He and scores of British agents were later executed, along with over 10,000 members of the French Resistance. One hundred and
sixty plane loads of armaments –2600 containers -- including tons of sten guns and explosives, were seized by the Nazis. (193)
MI-6 placed their own man Nicolas Bodington in SOE to vouch for Dericourt and block all efforts by SOE (Special Operations
Executive) to uncover the traitor. Bodington actually met with Baumelburg on a visit to Paris in 1943. They all had known each
other before the war. It was Bodington who introduced Baumelburg to Dericourt.
nothing new
a gay mi6 mason gave up the top teams from other depts within the british government because of rivalry in this case the soe.
more tea vicar benign normalcy
The
city
of London (and the conservative party) is full of pro Putin Russian money same as Russian money hostile to Putin.
It is highly likely that the - very unprofessional, messy - attack was done by people trying to embarrass Putin before the
election. That would be the Russian opposition - Chechen, Russian - whose center is in London plus the part of MI6 that would
become obsolete with an end to the cold war.
So Russians are fighting it out in a city dependent on their (largely illegal) money especially under the conditions of Brexit
- which may have been funded by both Russian factions to escape EU controls. It is not a good position to be in as the head of
a party sponsored by Russians.
May sanctioning Russian "pro Putin" money in the city of London would endanger the city's business model - that money is safe
there. It would also cut funds sponsoring the Conservative Party.
The moment that I read about this I assumed that the daughter had been sent to deliver a message (or, more likely, an offer) to
Skripal to flip one more time, and unfortunately for both of them "Western" spooks got wind of it and decided that This Can Not
Be Allowed To Happen.
Hence the hit, and also the need to stage the hit so that the very people who sent her could be blamed for the resulting mayhem.
80
The other angle is, he may already have flipped. Six years in jail and then pardoned. The Ukraine Joan of Ark, much touted in
MSM, pardoned, no longer the Joan of Ark one back in Ukraine and talking of peace. Dropped off the MSM radar very quickly.
All of these distractions must work as planned; there is a never ending drama; ramped up and down; played out ad infinitum.
The play behind the curtain is of course what is deemed important; but hard to focus with all the chatter.
War is coming to Syria; the U.S. is going to make a move (East Ghouta?) soon. They're boxed in and must find out just what Russia
can/will do.
Damn stupid move if it's made.
Skripal is just a pawn; but damned effective, so far, it would seem. TM is far more stupid than she looks.
@84 Ah, yep, so you did. So it's not just me who is paranoid....
A general question for the readership here: in the history of Soviet/Russian "hits" on exiled dissidents (and let's not kid
ourselves, there have been some) how many times have innocent bystanders become collateral damage?
I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking: do the Russians have an MO of taking great care that no citizen of the host
country is put in danger when an assassination attempt is made on an expat Russian?
Because that police officer first-responder is now fighting for his life, which does suggest that whoever did this was either
so sloppy or so callous that they didn't seem to give any consideration to the possibility that innocent Brits would be put in
danger.
Which strikes me as very in-Russian like but, then again, what do I know?
Lavrov as usual gives a logical response to the warmongering UK clowns. "Russia is not responsible," Sergei Lavrov said during
a televised press conference with the Indonesian foreign minister in which he suggested that Moscow would not comply with a Tuesday
deadline set by Theresa May to deliver an explanation or face retaliation.
Lavrov said Moscow's requests to see samples of the nerve agent have been turned down, which he called a violation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention outlawing the production of chemical weapons.
"We have already made our statement on this case," he said. "Russia is ready to cooperate in accordance with the convention
to ban chemical weapons if the United Kingdom will deign to fulfil its obligations according to the same convention."
In his remarks Lavrov said that under the convention, Russia would have ten days to reply to an official accusation by the
United Kingdom for the use of a banned substance inside its borders. [The Guardian]
"... The Russian diplomats also claimed that "it's obvious that by opting for unilateral and non-transparent methods of investigating this incident, the British authorities have once again tried to unleash an indiscriminate anti-Russian campaign." ..."
"... Moscow said that it was "unacceptable and unworthy" for the UK leadership to further escalate tensions in relations with Russia "in pursuit of its own deplorable political aims." ..."
"... Russia had previously said that it's open to cooperation with the UK on the Skripal case if it's carried out in accordance with international law and Moscow is treated as an equal partner in the probe. Russia has also officially requested that the UK provide all the case files regarding the incident, but was turned down. ..."
"... If the Skripals had been shot with a Smith & Wesson found at the scene, that's all the evidence May needs to prove the United States are responsible? ..."
"... Firstly , he had done all the damage he could possible have done to Russian intelligence interests: there is no way he would have been 'traded' in a prisoner-swap otherwise ..."
"... Secondly : using a chemical agent that is so strongly associated with Russia? That would be such monumentally poor tradecraft that it beggars belief. It would be as stupid as the Mossad scrawling passages from the Talmud in the hotel room in which they killed al-Mabouh ..."
"... Thirdly , and most importantly: prisoner-swap individuals are the nearest thing there is to sacrosanct in the intelligence game. If Russia offed one of the people that it had swapped out , it would undermine the implied 'protected' status of people it had managed to swap back . ..."
"... As all y'all know, I am the last person to ascribe consistency or competence to state security and intelligence appratuses and their apparatchiki - but I would consider it massively unlikely that the Russians dunnit in such a hamfisted and stupidly detectable way. ..."
"... That would pretty much require the Pommie government to hurl accusations at someone, otherwise the whole " The UK produces significant quantities of biological weapons at Porton Down " narrative would clamber to the top of the problem sheet, and would have a new adjunct: " baddies can acquire deadly toxins - for a price - from corrupt individuals within the program ". ..."
Shortly after the Russian embassy in the UK
reacted angrily to Britain's expulsion of 23 diplomats after Theresa May accused Russia of
using a chemical weapon on UK soil, saying that it considers "this hostile action as totally
unacceptable, unjustified and shortsighted" and adding that "all the responsibility for the
deterioration of the Russia-UK relationship lies with the current political leadership of
Britain", the Russian foreign ministry double down and warned that the UK's "hostile actions"
against Russia under the pretext of the poisoning of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal are an
"unprecedented provocation" which won't be left without a response.
The British move is "an unprecedentedly rude provocation, which undermines the foundations
of a normal dialogue between our countries," the ministry said in a statement.
The ministry said that "the British government chose confrontation with Russia" instead of
completing the investigation and using international formats "including those in the framework
of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
The Russian diplomats also claimed that "it's obvious that by opting for unilateral and
non-transparent methods of investigating this incident, the British authorities have once again
tried to unleash an indiscriminate anti-Russian campaign."
Moscow said that it was "unacceptable and unworthy" for the UK leadership to further
escalate tensions in relations with Russia "in pursuit of its own deplorable political
aims."
"Needless to say, our response measures will not be long in coming," the Foreign Ministry
concluded.
Russia had previously said that it's open to cooperation with the UK on the Skripal case if
it's carried out in accordance with international law and Moscow is treated as an equal partner
in the probe. Russia has also officially requested that the UK provide all the case files
regarding the incident, but was turned down.
Below is the response from the Russia Foreign Ministry so far:
The March 14 statement made by British Prime Minister Theresa May in Parliament on
measures to "punish" Russia, under the false pretext of its alleged involvement in the
poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, constitutes an unprecedented, flagrant
provocation that undermines the foundations of normal dialogue between our countries.
We believe it is absolutely unacceptable and unworthy of the British Government to seek to
further seriously aggravate relations in pursuit of its unseemly political ends, having
announced a whole series of hostile measures, including the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats
from the country.
Instead of completing its own investigation and using established international formats
and instruments, including within the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons – in which we were prepared to cooperate – the British
Government opted for confrontation with Russia. Obviously, by investigating this incident in
a unilateral, non-transparent way, the British Government is again seeking to launch a
groundless anti-Russian campaign.
Needless to say, our response measures will not be long in coming
Separately, when the Russian embassy was asked about the unexpected death of Nikolay
Glushkov who as we reported yesterday was an associated of billionaire anit-Putin oligarch
Boris Berezovsky, it said: "Regretfully, the Embassy has received no information whatsoever
regarding the circumstances of the death of Mr Glushkov. The investigation is not transparent,
the British side appears not inclined to cooperate. This can only cause regret. Today the
Embassy made an official request to provide all the information in possession of the British
side regarding this Russian citizen whose death, as you said, appears mysterious."
"Overall, we are surprised with UK authorities' reluctance and unwillingness to provide us
with full details of both the poisoning of Russians Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of
Nikolay Glushkov."
We expect it is only a matter of time before Putin is personally blamed for Glushkov's death
next.
On the one hand they try to distract from their multiple failures and create or follow
obvious false flag attacks against Russia, on the other hand they detain patriots like Lauren
Southern, Martin Sellner etc. and also try to silence Tommy Robinson who are just voicing
their opinion about the disastrous Multi-Kulti policies of western Europe:
Usually a Russian who stole his way into serious wealth and then quickly bolted and left
the country to live high on the hog. Many reside in London and NYC and can't remember one
getting poisoned in the US.
Putin is such a fuck-up. Wasn't it obvious that this was going to happen? And no, Russian
denials of responsibility carry no weight. Remember how they denied that the invading troops
in Ukraine were really Russian? Yeah, that pretty much destroyed their credibility
forever.
Yeah and WMDs in Iraq certainly "made" US credibility LOL. Do you think Putin would want
to take out this double agent in the most extravagant way possible shortly before March 18th
when he could have done it quietly while he was in Russia? Take your head out of your ass and
think about cui bono? You're lapping up their stinking bullshit again.
This is MI5 handiwork, local chemical facility couple of miles from Salisbury. Its pretty
pathetic.
The game is up. The fuckers were exposed for the head-chopper scum that they are in Syria
for the whole world to see while they pretended to be white knight virtuosos of peace, and
now the best they can do is blame Russia Russia Russia because Russia is the reason they
failed to install Wahhabis in Syria!
Indeed. It's hard to believe that Skripal wouldn't have a very good idea of who just tried
to kill him. The fact that the British have put a muzzle on him tells you everything you need
to know. The longer Skripal goes without saying anything while in British custody, the more
certain you can be that when he does open his mouth, it'll be because they are forcing him to
say something he doesn't want to say.
One thing you can say about Clown World®, at least it's entertaining to watch.
Ummm...let's see if they die in hospital, if they aren't already dead. The Russians have
been denied a consular visit. And where is Christopher Steele?
Note that Jeremy Corbyn is the only one in Parliament who asked for proof to be provided
before such action was taken.
Note also that Assange is a bit of a cunt saying that the Russian moves are already "gamed
out". Jumping the gun aren't we Julian? WHERE IS THE FUCKING PROOF RUSSIA WAS EVEN
INVOLVED??
Skripal was an associate of Christopher Steele and Pablo Martin. Skripal is the one who
fed the Russian side of the Trump dossier and was likely paid to do so. Israel Mossad also
had the means with the chemicals and assassin's to pull it off. Zionist pissed because Russia
helping Syria.
US/UK also have motive. Skripal could tell the truth about dossier. Was he on Mueller or
Congressional list of inquiries?
A public park bench is a difficult covert assassination spot. They had to loose
consciousness so fast that they did not try to flee or draw attention, yet they are still
barely alive. How was the nerve agent delivered? Plus, the assassin had to be sure there was
no public surveillance or phone cams to incriminate him/her.
Notice that the Brits aren't handing over any information to Russia. Just an ultimatum. Is
that diplomacy? They aren't handing anything over because it is all made up out of whole
cloth. Russia isn't so stupid to kill a well-known Russian in such an exotic way when bullets
work just as well. Do you think Russians would go to such an exotic murder method which would
point to them? This is a false flag, which is why NOTHING has been submitted to Russia. Just
a lot of hot air from May the Witch.
I remind you that the US SUPPORTED the VIOLENT OVERTHROW of a PROPERLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT
in order to INSTALL their PRO-NATO, PRO-EURO, PUPPET GOVERNMENT. Russia saw where this was
going and ensured access to the Naval Base they have had for over 200 YEARS. Seeing yet
ANOTHER NATO move next to Russia and being thrown out of their only warm-water port, they
acted to keep what is rightfully theirs. You, sir, are a complete dupe of the MSM.
On Wednesday, September 15, the Israeli army surrounded the Palestinian refugee camp
of Shatila and the adjacent neighborhood of Sabra in West Beirut. The next day, September 16,
Israeli soldiers allowed about 150 Phalangist militiamen into Sabra and Shatila.
The Phalange, known for their brutality and a history of atrocities against
Palestinian civilians, were bitter enemies of the PLO and its leftist and Muslim Lebanese
allies during the preceding years of Lebanon's civil war. The enraged Phalangist militiamen
believed, erroneously, that Phalange leader Gemayel had been assassinated by Palestinians. He
was actually killed by a Syrian agent.
Over the next day and a half, the Phalangists committed unspeakable atrocities,
raping, mutilating, and murdering as many as 3500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, most of
them women, children, and the elderly. Sharon would later claim that he could have had no way
of knowing that the Phalange would harm civilians, however when US diplomats demanded to know
why Israel had broken the ceasefire and entered West Beirut, Israeli army Chief of Staff
Rafael Eitan justified the move saying it was "to prevent a Phalangist frenzy of revenge." On
September 15, the day before the massacre began, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin told
US envoy Morris Draper that the Israelis had to occupy West Beirut, "Otherwise, there could
be pogroms."
Almost immediately after the killing started, Israeli soldiers surrounding Sabra and
Shatila became aware that civilians were being murdered, but did nothing to stop it. Instead,
Israeli forces fired flares into the night sky to illuminate the darkness for the
Phalangists, allowed reinforcements to enter the area on the second day of the massacre, and
provided bulldozers that were used to dispose of the bodies of many of the victims.
On the second day, Friday, September 17, an Israeli journalist in Lebanon called
Defense Minister Sharon to inform him of reports that a massacre was taking place in Sabra
and Shatila. The journalist, Ron Ben-Yishai, later recalled:
'I found [Sharon] at home sleeping. He woke up and I told him "Listen, there are stories
about killings and massacres in the camps. A lot of our officers know about it and tell me
about it, and if they know it, the whole world will know about it. You can still stop it." I
didn't know that the massacre actually started 24 hours earlier. I thought it started only
then and I said to him "Look, we still have time to stop it. Do something about it." He
didn't react."'
On Friday afternoon, almost 24 hours after the killing began, Eitan met with
Phalangist representatives. According to notestaken by an Israeli intelligence officer
present: "[Eitan] expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the
Phalangist forces and their behavior in the field," telling them to continue "mopping up the
empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their
action due to American pressure."
On Saturday, American Envoy Morris Draper, sent a furious message to Sharon
stating: 'You must stop the massacres. They are obscene. I have an officer in the camp counting the
bodies. You ought to be ashamed. The situation is rotten and terrible. They are killing
children. You are in absolute control of the area, and therefore responsible for the
area.'
The Phalangists finally left the area at around 8 o'clock Saturday morning, taking
many of the surviving men with them for interrogation at a soccer stadium. The interrogations
were carried out with Israeli intelligence agents, who handed many of the captives back to
the Phalange. Some of the men returned to the Phalange were later found executed.
About an hour after the Phalangists departed Sabra and Shatila, the first journalists
arrived on the scene and the first reports of what transpired began to reach the outside
world.
Bullshit.....Western elites have become laughingstock of the world.
The constant drama and pandering to non-evidence-based emotional appeals is getting
tiring.
It looks like Western governments are in dire need of the low-IQ crowd for their
legitimacy with each new passing contrived scandal and conflict, meant to direct attention
towards every single foreign bogeyman other than themselves.
you need to educate yourself in order to conduct an intelligent discussion at ZH.
start here:
" The financial sector exploits an astonishing political privilege: the City of London is
the only jurisdiction in the UK not fully subject to the authority of parliament. ...
The City is a semi off-shore state, a bit like the UK's crown dependencies and overseas
territories, ...
Even the more orthodox financial institutions deploy a succession of scandalous practices:
pension scams, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance con, Libor
rigging."
You think the on-going history of the wrongs of a society of international bankers,
aristocrats and other powerful men and women running things in England is irrelevant?
May is a puppet of the oligarchic monsters which run her nation, the US and Israel. Putin
is the only leader of a major power on the world stage with enough courage and integrity to
oppose them. It is Russia under Putin which is defeating ISIS in Syria and not the false-flag
nations of Britain, the US or Israel. If this evil cabal would simply stop supplying and
paying the terrorists the war in Syria would abruptly end.
The bankster cabal first spread their control from England to the American colonies and
after the 1776 American Revolution, which was essentially against them, they manipulated to
regain complete financial control over US finances and assets until through their bankster
agents in the US they succeeded by the end of the 19th century, administering the final coup
de grâce in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act.
This same cabal is directly responsible for all the major wars of the 20 th
century. In Britain, the US, and most Western nations, they control finances, the media, most
politicians, the entertainment industry, and most research, historical education and
publications. They control both the left and right political wings in British and American
politics. They rule by causing endless division in the moderate majority of the citizenry and
they constantly remain hidden from any real scrutiny or accountability. They purse
monopolistic control of everything they touch. Like the monopolistic control of the diamond
industry, they are now seeking complete control of the energy sector mainly through extreme
sanctions and military conquest. The wars in the Middle East and aggression against Russia
and other nations attempting to control their own oil and gas resources is the major link to
complete global hegemony.
The purpose of their long regime-change operation and war against the Syrian government is
to divide that nation both for additional territory for Israel, and for complete control of
the vast Mid East oil and gas reserves together with a British-American controlled pipeline
through Syria. There is no regard for the devastation they have caused to that nation or to
the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and the displacement of millions.
They organized, trained, armed, supplied, deployed and payed both the so-called "moderate
terrorists" and the radical Deash (ISIS, ISIL, & IS) terrorists.
They are the most evil, greedy, plundering counterfeit human beings on the face of the
earth, and they do not have and cannot have the support of any truly God-fearing people
anywhere even if they call themselves Christians, Jews, or Muslims.
As much as I'd love for Putin to reveal details of all the false flag operations it will
go unreported and classically refuted (without supporting evidence other than "it's the
Russians, what did you expect them to say?").
The power of the establishment lies with the lies - and the MSM that propagate them.
Does anyone besides me get the impression that the deep state in the US is in cahoots with
the deep state in the UK and that it was likely the CIA that poisoned that double agent just
to stir up more shit with Russia?
The UK-US elites are getting desperate. They know the game is up. Many people are no
longer buying the stupid shit they're selling. These clowns don't have the ability to back
down, they will go full retard. It's what empires do when ruled by degenerates and pedophiles
coked up on hubris and lawlessness.
Brazen, should have read National Security council Twitter. More folks know, than don't,
that this is FF to manufacture consent for war on Russia cuz Russia and Syria moping up the
terrorists enclaves in E.Ghouta. Only a few are deceived. But Corporate media want folks
thinking that most believe.
They dont. House of cards falls when JUSA screams chemical attack in Syria (planned) and
attacks Damascus with JUSA military hardware. And Russia retaliates....
Read..
Novichok is FIVE TIMES MORE POTENT than VX and yet nobody died. Rather curious eh? VX was
used on Kim's half brother and he died within minutes. They are obviously lying.
Novichok is FIVE TIMES MORE POTENT than VX and yet nobody died. Rather curious eh? VX was
used on Kim's half brother and he died within minutes. They are obviously lying.
If Novichok was actually used, then dozens would have been killed in that area. Even the
TARGET survived! Wake up rationalists!
Just like Hitler invaded Ukraine after the winter was over, the EU and UK attack Russia
over this bs after winter is over otherwise the gas lines would be shut off. The earlier in
the spring, the better. This timing is not an accident.
It also takes the focus off of the current FBI FISA abuses in the US. FBI deputy who was
bribed by Clinton and the DNC to obstruct justice was fired today.
The UK is so incredibly out of line here. Of course it's not really "the UK", it's the
global banking class who is trying to instigate a war as a major distraction from what really
ails planet earth. And that problem is a totally unpayable global debt, a situation that is
going to end in world-wide economic catastrophe, a catastrophe cause by... you guessed it,
the same global banking class who is screaming for an excuse for what's coming, and which
they themselves caused. But of course I'll bet 97% of ZH readers already understand this
fully. It's the rest of the world who are going to get absolutely blindsided that I worry
most about.
'But its the only "evidence" we've got'. Classic frame up. Pull someone over, drop some
coke on them...they become a "Drug Dealer"...drop some Russian coke on them...and they become
a Russian drug dealer. Simple confabulation which skews the objective nature of any
investigation. There is also alot of word association at play here. Not in any order, but
when we hear, "Nerve Agent", "Assassination", "Putin"...it imprints a certain degree of
relativity...between these commonly used words so that they define their own, new meaning of
those words...making them synonymous and therefore the sheeple will come to their "OWN"
informed conclusions that Putin, in fact, did assassinate with a Russian nerve agent. Making
it that much easier to steer public opinion as needed.
If Deep State UK-US starts war with Russia....can we all agree that we dont accept that
and they will need to be taken down? NO MORE WAR! NO WAR WITH RUSSIA!
The British Secret Service, once lauded as the best in the World is a pale imitation of
comic outfits like the Keystone Cops, their false flags are pure theatre, one could be
forgiven thinking that some thespian luvvie was directing operations; maybe the usual Secret
Service recruitment grounds of Oxford and Cambridge are only teaching drama studies courses
these days. A few of their LESS pathetic attempts of cloak and daggery of recent years;
Robin Cooke offends Blair, so Robin Cooke an experienced fell walker falls off a cliff to
his death
Alexander Litvinenko is poisoned by Polonium, a completely unnecessary act seeing as he
was already dying of cancer,
Gareth Williams a researcher at GCHQ fails to show for work for a week, but against all
official protocols which require GCHQ for safety and security reasons to check WHY he failed
to show, and check why he had not as required made his period check ins, GCHQ ignored his no
show for a week; and when his apartment was eventually searched they found him dead locked up
in a hold all bag.
At the inquest it was the official story that he had locked himself in the bag in some
sort of bizarre sex game, to add credence to this it was stated that numerous womens dresses
in his wardrobe. Under cross examination the Police admitted that the dresses were still in
their original wrappers and had not been worn, and had been bought from Oxford street stores
whose prices were way above what Gareth Williams could afford, it was also revealed by
forensic experts that it was impossible for him to have locked himself into the hold all.
The Coroner recorded a verdict of death in suspicious circumstances and ordered the Police
to reopen the case, they have not. What information had Gareth stumbled upon which proved
fatal to his health.
The UK government's claims are simply preposterous - the Russians are the last people who
would off Skripal.
Firstly , he had done all the damage he could possible have done to Russian intelligence
interests: there is no way he would have been 'traded' in a prisoner-swap otherwise;
Secondly : using a chemical agent that is so strongly associated with Russia? That would
be such monumentally poor tradecraft that it beggars belief. It would be as stupid as the
Mossad scrawling passages from the Talmud in the hotel room in which they killed al-Mabouh (who, truth be told, was probably offed by rivals - Mossad will work for anyone at a price,
so long as the target is not a political ally of the Zionist Occupiers of Palestine).
Thirdly , and most importantly: prisoner-swap individuals are the nearest thing there is
to sacrosanct in the intelligence game. If Russia offed one of the people that it had swapped
out , it would undermine the implied 'protected' status of people it had managed to swap back
. It would risk setting off a wave of reprisal killings of people who had been out of the
game for decades - which would severely dry up the ability to recruit clandestine assets
(part of the whole offer is promising the traitor that they would, if discovered, be included
in a swap - these swaps happen all the time ... occasionally folks like Aldrich Ames discover
that immediate swap is not always possible, but at least Ames is not dead).
As all y'all know, I am the last person to ascribe consistency or competence to state
security and intelligence appratuses and their apparatchiki - but I would consider it
massively unlikely that the Russians dunnit in such a hamfisted and stupidly detectable
way.
It's far more likely that Skripal was a buyer's conduit, acquiring the chemical agent from
a source inside Porton Down... and fucked up its handling.
That would pretty much require the Pommie government to hurl accusations at someone,
otherwise the whole " The UK produces significant quantities of biological weapons at Porton
Down " narrative would clamber to the top of the problem sheet, and would have a new adjunct:
" baddies can acquire deadly toxins - for a price - from corrupt individuals within the
program ".
That would add another headache to the beleaguered premiership of Theresa May.
I can't figure out what the hell is going on these days in UK, are they looking are they
looking to exit the Europe only or the rather exit out of the world. What do they really
want? Do they really think they can isolate Russia out of Europe?
Would that bring more
security for UK? IMO, they must be crazy if they think American population will allow or come
to protect them again, while the two-ocean security no longer is viable in era of ICBMs.
As
colonel predicts a pre-war condition is forming on the two far ends of our outdated two ocean
protection.
"No British outlet will work in Russia if London shuts down RT - Foreign Ministry"
"... This is a time chosen to do most harm to Russia, with both the elections and the World Cup imminent. ..."
"... I really do not think that Putin gives a toss about the Skripals, and with the daughter living in Russia, Skripal was probably careful not to put her in danger. Which means it is even more unlikely to be Russia. We never do our own dirty work of course, that is what 'special relationships' are for. ..."
"... Listening to ex-CIA agent Philip Giraldi speak about the particular nerve agent used against Skirpal, it seem clear that not only would Skripal now be dead but quite a few other people in the nearby area would also be dead, such is the potency of the named agent. ..."
"... If we take into account the accusations against Russia of using chemical weapons in Syria, which again were suspect. Then we can plainly see that this latest event in England, can at the very least be seen in a similar light. ..."
"... This is what confuses me about the incident, how was it administered and how come they are not dead? Novichok agents are not widely known but I did find some information from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent ..."
"... If Novichok was found in Zizzi then either the attempted murderers followed Skripal there or Skripal himself was carrying it. Unless the agent placed it in the targets food (very carefully), every other method I can think of had a large chance of killing members of the public and the agents themselves. ..."
"... As Skripal was outside when he become unconscious the most likely method is that someone walking past sprayed the powder in his face. Assuming of course it was Novichok. A slower acting agent would make things a lot easier and safer. ..."
"... Assuming of course that the whole thing wasn't faked. ..."
"... Excellent article. The UK media and Westminster are suffering from mass hysteria again just like, as you correctly state, they did with Saddam Hussain. It seems to be a case of guilty until proved innocent. ..."
"... The UK authorities actions in Salisbury seem either inept or suspicious. Shortly after finding Skripal and his daughter, and realising this was a nerve gas attack, I'd have expected an evacuation of the surrounding area, if not the whole town. Once they determined it was from the Novichok (spelling, Craig?) family, at least one of which is extremely powerful, it seems perhaps more likely the whole town should have been evacuated – rather than a recommendation to those in the bar and restaurant to wash their clothes etc. ..."
"... There would also be a manhunt underway to try and find the perpetrator(s). ..."
"... what is saddest about this incident is that the UK public have been infected by JamesBondism for generations, and spooks are very "sexed up" ..."
"... Major Alert ! Britain is undefended against Chemical Attack. Whether from False Flag, Terrorists, Russian or Israeli. The Threat Response demonstrated a complete shambolic readiness and zero contingency planning. ..."
"... Russia has humiliated the US, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the middle east with its successful support of Syria. This could well be an attempt at retaliation. Qui buno ? Putin? Lest we forget, they do this kind of stuff, but are rarely caught. ..."
"... Here was a documented and utterly undeniable false flag, inside job, with Israel/US fingerprints all over it, does anybody remember how the media howled at the time, blaming Iraq, compounding the prevalent fear so soon after 9/11. Remember how silent they were when it turned out to be yet another one of their gigantic lies. ..."
"... Anthrax: The Forgotten False Flag and the Illegal Invasion of Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP2G-cejYhI ..."
"... Another false flag lie that helped launch a war. The Incubator Babies Conspiracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U ..."
"... I expect May knows full well it wasn't the Russians behind this poisoning attack. The whole pantomime is necessary so they can turn a blind eye to the real perpetrators, for which our government probably gets some favour in return. ..."
"... YES! It was [like] the White Helmets. Now it all makes sense. The discrepancies form a pattern called British state bullshite. ..."
The assassination of a Hamas commander in Dubai is confirmed as a Mossad operation, it will not be the first time that Israeli
agents have used or tried to obtain foreign passports.
Forty-nine-year-old Mahmoud ¬al-Mabhouh was found dead in his room at the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel last month, and within days
Hamas officials claimed he had been murdered as part of a secret operation by the Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service.
Dubai police said yesterday they were looking for 11 suspects with regard to the killing, all carrying European passports – six
from Britain, three from Ireland and one each from France and Germany. Dubai's police chief said the assassination was a foreign
intelligence operation by Israel.
Two suspected agents were jailed for six months in 2004 in New Zealand for trying to falsely obtain a New Zealand passport.
They were caught when an immigration official noticed a passport applicant was speaking with an American or Canadian accent.
Helen Clark, then prime minister of New Zealand, criticised Israel for behaving in a way "unacceptable internationally by any
country". She said at the time: "The breach of New Zealand laws and sovereignty by agents of the Israeli government has seriously
strained our relationship with Israel.
Agents from Mossad were caught with foreign passports, triggering diplomatic rows. In 1997, two using forged Canadian passports
were arrested in Amman after trying to assassinate Khalid Meshal, a Hamas official by spraying poison into his ear!
The agents were quickly captured & their mission backfired spectacularly. Israel was forced to hand over an antidote that saved
Meshal's life & had to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas spiritual leader, from prison, while also incurring the anger of
key Arab ally Jordan. That operation was carried out while Binyamin Netanyahu was prime minister.
I was already assuming that Putin would have nothing to do with this. He has too much to lose, while others have too much to
gain. Simply looking at Syria, where the intentions of the West, together with it's Gulf allies, have been thwarted, would be
enough of a reason. This is a time chosen to do most harm to Russia, with both the elections and the World Cup imminent.
I thought that May would have shown more common sense, but seems to have been easily bullied into following the ideas of the
American Press, or even the Russian haters in UK. That said, there was probably also a trigger; a reason to bump him off anyway,
where that was combined with the intention to cause most harm to Russian interests, (If they have to do it, then they might as
well achieve the most from it.) The question is 'Why did they have to do it and to whom was he a threat or nuisance? I really
do not think that Putin gives a toss about the Skripals, and with the daughter living in Russia, Skripal was probably careful
not to put her in danger. Which means it is even more unlikely to be Russia. We never do our own dirty work of course, that is
what 'special relationships' are for.
Stepping back for a moment, I'm now even more convinced that the nerve agent attack in Sailsbury was staged.
Listening to ex-CIA agent Philip Giraldi speak about the particular nerve agent used against Skirpal, it seem clear that
not only would Skripal now be dead but quite a few other people in the nearby area would also be dead, such is the potency of
the named agent.
So why has this whole event come about, is it an attempt to damage Putin's election chances? In my opinion Putin will still
win comfortably though definitely not fairly.
Is it some sort of payback for the somewhat not proven fully attempts of Russian hacking in the US and Germany.
If we take into account the accusations against Russia of using chemical weapons in Syria, which again were suspect. Then
we can plainly see that this latest event in England, can at the very least be seen in a similar light.
Apparently these agents only require a few mg to kill, being more deadly than other nerve agents. Novichok is believed to be
in powder form and starts to act in seconds, with death in minutes.
If Novichok was found in Zizzi then either the attempted murderers followed Skripal there or Skripal himself was carrying
it. Unless the agent placed it in the targets food (very carefully), every other method I can think of had a large chance of killing
members of the public and the agents themselves.
As Skripal was outside when he become unconscious the most likely method is that someone walking past sprayed the powder
in his face. Assuming of course it was Novichok. A slower acting agent would make things a lot easier and safer.
Excellent article. The UK media and Westminster are suffering from mass hysteria again just like, as you correctly state,
they did with Saddam Hussain. It seems to be a case of guilty until proved innocent.
The UK authorities actions in Salisbury seem either inept or suspicious. Shortly after finding Skripal and his daughter,
and realising this was a nerve gas attack, I'd have expected an evacuation of the surrounding area, if not the whole town. Once
they determined it was from the Novichok (spelling, Craig?) family, at least one of which is extremely powerful, it seems perhaps
more likely the whole town should have been evacuated – rather than a recommendation to those in the bar and restaurant to wash
their clothes etc.
what is saddest about this incident is that the UK public have been infected by JamesBondism for generations, and spooks
are very "sexed up" . The John Hale book "The Whistleblower" points out that "secret agents"(at least the management -grade)
are similar the world over, rather as "special forces" men are surely interchangeable merely of different nationalities.
So the public is receptive to a Hollywood-style scenario where truth is the first casualty. We start from the position that
we are the good guys, together with our good friends, like the Yanks and the Israelis. And end at the same point. It's a win-win
situation for the media moguls and sleazy politicians, whose combined honour is about the same as the amount of whatever required
to kill "x" number of double/triple/quadruple agents. A wonderful weapon of mass distraction, stage management of the highest
order. Grotesque.
So to hold Putin responsible we have to believe that a) he successfully concealed CW stock from OPCW inspectors in order to
achieve certification and then b) within 6 months of doing so, reveals that he has such material by ordering it to be used to
assassinate a low-value target in a way and location that guarantees the material being identified, being impossible to conceal
and causing much outraged publicity. Thus losing, or at least losing credibility for, Russian compliance with the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
Brilliant article. I agree with all of that, except the bit about Crimea. The Russians were already legally there, hosting
their Black Sea Fleet, where they had been since 1783. They didn't shoot anyone, and the population of Crimea voted overwhelmingly,
to again become a part of Russia. If that hadn't have happened, Crimea's fate would be even worse than that of the Donbass, with
very heavy casualties in Sevestapol, and quite probably a hot shooting war between Russians already stationed there, and American
mercenaries if not their full army. The Americans obviously wanted to take Sevastpol from the Russians, and were defeated without
a shot being fired. WWIII has so fare been avoided (I hope).
Otherwise, one of the best things you have ever written.
The Crimea referendum vote must have been because of the economy. Remove the Russian fleet from Sebastopol, and the Crimean
economy would have been up the creek, with nothing to replace it from Kiev.
The US were fully determined to take over Sevastopol and the naval base. So much so they had drawn up plans and for putting
contracts out to tender. They would certainly have kept the Crimean economy afloat.
Crimea was the main target for the US coup in Kiev. To deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base.
The first one to rule out is Russia. So blaming Russia is the game here. Could be Mossad, they would be favourites. The cold
war goes on, Russia are an impediment to the West in the M/E, the key area for control of energy, the crucial big weapon as they
see it. The US deep state do not trust Trump and try to smear his victory crying Russian involvement. Now they strike back and
interfere in Russian elections! They won't like his art of the deal sit down with NK, he's off message to them. These things are
all distractions for the mass of people. The BBC was primed ready to launch the Russia story on QT last Thursday, straight out
the blocks no evidence required.
If it were Mossad I think the job would have been done properly. To me it's got a distinctively British, naff quality, from
the botched assassination attempt right up to the bumbling police response.
"If it were Mossad I think the job would have been done properly."
Not at all. Mossad have botched lots of assassinations and false-flags, going back to the Lavon Affair in Cairo in 1954. In
any case, the point here was not to kill the guy, but to put the blame on Putin.
The Crimean authorities have relied on the well-known Kosovo precedent, a precedent our Western partners created themselves,
with their own hands, so to speak. In a situation absolutely similar to the Crimean one, they deemed Kosovo's secession from Serbia
to be legitimate, arguing everywhere that no permission from the country's central authorities was required for the unilateral
declaration of independence.
The UN's international court, based on Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, agreed with that, and in its decision of
22 July 2010 noted the following, and I quote verbatim: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security
Council with regard to unilateral declarations of independence.
UN's Int. Court No prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council regarding unilateral declarations
of independence
So today the BBC website is linking to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/415742.stm
– where Uzbekistan's inheritance of chemical weapons facilities was dismantled with US experts.
Many possibilities arise for continuation of that work by Russia's enemies .. any comment from Our Man in Uzbekistan, Craig?
Major Alert ! Britain is undefended against Chemical Attack. Whether from False Flag, Terrorists, Russian or Israeli. The Threat Response demonstrated a complete shambolic readiness and zero contingency planning.
Forget about the threat from Russia, they can turn Britain (in totality) into a smouldering radioactive waste ground. The UK
cannot countermeasure this threat, it cannot defend against it and it seems the only reprisal it can take is not to send our brave
footballers to the World Cup.
Who are doing the most killings in the world? It's not the jihadies.
But thanks to HMG's response to the Salisbury incident the jihadies now know how to paralyse Britain.
Even a low grade co-ordinated Chemical Attack across multiple sites, pubs, restaurants, transport hubs, shopping centres, sports
venues etc will crate chaos (terror)
They still don't know what the toxin was, they don't know where it came from, who delivered it, how it was administered or
why. (the why is the most important of these, fat old blokes are easy to kill – this needed to be global news).
We do however know about the route the pair took, where they ate, drank. What flowers were put on a grave, a car recovered,
a helicopter (don't mention the helicopter spreading a chemical weapon over Salisbury). The house, the red bag the brave Detective
sgt first on the scene, before uniformed constables or ambulance and his visit to the victims home.
We know lots now but we still don't know what, who and why but we do know how to cripple Britain
Thank you HMG for making that known and making us less safe.
Craig is correct about Mossad. There are many instances of assassination.
In 1992, an El Al Boeing 747 cargo plane crashed near Schipol airport and Avner Cohen reports that it had a shipment of DMMP,
used in the manufacture of sarin nerve gas. From the Israeli government's public reaction to this tragedy, it seems that the policy
of ambiguity and opacity that surround Israel's use and deployment of nuclear weapons, developed by Israel as a strategy to contain
and threaten the Arab states without the danger of alienating US support, is also being followed in dealing with the problem of
Israel's refusal to ratify the Chemical Weapons treaty and join the Biological Weapons Treaty.
Russia has humiliated the US, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the middle east with its successful support of Syria.
This could well be an attempt at retaliation. Qui buno ? Putin? Lest we forget, they do this kind of stuff, but are rarely caught.
Here was a documented and utterly undeniable false flag, inside job, with Israel/US fingerprints all over it, does anybody
remember how the media howled at the time, blaming Iraq, compounding the prevalent fear so soon after 9/11. Remember how silent
they were when it turned out to be yet another one of their gigantic lies.
An excellent piece. The Russian scare is almost certainly nothing more than a smokescreen so the real perpetrators can get
away. We have seen this tactic in all the recent terrorist attacks, complete with the huge police search that inevitably turns
up nothing except red herrings, and certainly not any ringleaders.
And leaving aside which state was behind this, why aren't there any clues about the would-be assassins?
I expect May knows full well it wasn't the Russians behind this poisoning attack. The whole pantomime is necessary so they can
turn a blind eye to the real perpetrators, for which our government probably gets some favour in return.
"Russia will not respond to Britain's request to explain its alleged role in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy in
the UK until Moscow is allowed access to the case materials, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said."
Looks like Russia's Foreign Minister, has called May's bluff. But I'm pretty sure that the Tory government, see's the production
of hard evidence and supplying said evidence to Russia as a non starter.
Its far more important to achieve a consensus from their allies, which it looks like they have, and move forward with implementing
some sort of retribution, which ever form it takes.
Another interesting post by Craig. So basically lots of states could have used Novichok, including the UK at Porton Down, just
a few miles from where the young woman was treated for vomiting by a doctor who wasn't wearing any protection.
The Israeli hardliners certainly have more to gain in muddying waters, causing distractions from their Palestinian atrocities
and in addition tweak the Russian noses for discouraging their participation, opposing Shia elements. The Israelis could, of course,
depend on support from Tories and May/Patel in particular!
Meanwhile the BBC are playing down Donald Trump's shock removal of Rex Tillerson, whose been replaced by Mike Pompeo, as Secretary
of State.
Tillerson who was the US Secretary of State has been very vocal on the alleged nerve agent attack in Salisbury – Tillerson
had no qualms about blaming Russia.
"... Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that. ..."
First of all, thank you Andrei Martyanov for the very informative analysis/article. Also, thank you Ron Unz for this supporting
addendum.
I am very much interested in further information concerning the U.S. military establishments seeming (increasingly alluded
to) weak assessment/intelligence of Russian military capability, especially armaments.
Iraq is going to be a topic of (likely dramatically) increasing heat and attention (in the uncensored press which reports on
the issues that are the most important to everyone alive, like this web site). The 'referendum' in the Kurdish dominated area
of Iraq will make the 24 month long reverse polarization of Turkey (from NATO/US partner to Russian partner) look like an indecisive
epic.
If anyone thought the 'war' in Iraq was going poorly for the Americans before, 'they ain't seen nothing yet'! Also, the passing
the point of no return for Turkey; they've had enough lies and disingenuous promises from the Euroangangstas; their future association
to the U.S. and (western) Europe will be exclusively from the Eurasian-centric multi-polar world perspective, under which they
will prosper as well or better than they ever have before.
Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this
very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that.
With all of this Russiaphobia (let us not forget that this emanating as a deflection from the revelations a corrupt candidate
who was cheating to win a party's nomination for the U.S. presidential candidate), it is highly politically incorrect to reference
how far ahead V. Putin's geopolitical movement is compared to the west, especially the civil war crippled U.S.A..
One can see so much thoughtfulness and 'communication' in the completely unnecessary flight path, through Iraq of the
bombers delivering their payloads. In fact, it could be the most telling aspect of the entire operation!
Iraq is lost to the western empire.
Unfortunately, the response to on-ground western-empire supported aggression in the Kurdish-dominated region of Iraq, and likely
in other Kurdish dominated middle eastern regions (outside of Iran), will like be decisive and therefore brutal (but, alas, understandable).
"... The British government is now demanding that Russia make a full disclosure of its Novichok programme by Tuesday evening. A Russian denial that such a programme existed will be taken as proof of guilt. ..."
I think the underlying assumption of your post - that a Novichok programme existed - is
open to serious doubt.
The only source for the story of a Soviet/Russian programme to develop a new class of
military nerve agents codenamed Novichoks is a defector in the 1990s named Vil Mirzayanov. He
claimed that one of these compounds was 5 to 8 times more toxic than VX and that production
of these compounds had continued after the Chemical Weapons Convention came into effect. He
explained the many publications in the open literature by Soviet chemists on compounds with
similar structures as a deception to provide cover for secret research on other more toxic
compounds, and gave structures for these compounds.
A review of chemical warfare agents in 2016 ( http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapter/bk9781849739696-00001/978-1-84973-969-6)
by Robin Black, who had just retired as head of the detection lab at Porton Down, states that
there is no independent confirmation of Mirzayanov's claims about the chemical properties of
Novichok compounds.
The report of the OPCW's Scientific Advisory Board's meeting in April 2013 made a similar
statement, and did not recommend adding these compounds or their precursors to the list of
scheduled chemicals banned or restricted under the CWC. The members of the scientific
advisory board included people who, like Black, were heads of western chemical defence labs.
These labs would almost surely have undertaken experimental tests of Mirzayanov's claims
about the toxicity of these compounds. So if members of the scientific advisory board who
were in a position to know the results of these experiments did not recommend adding these
compounds to the list of scheduled chemicals, we can reasonably infer that they were not
found to be military grade nerve agents.
The British government is now demanding that Russia make a full disclosure of its
Novichok programme by Tuesday evening. A Russian denial that such a programme existed will be
taken as proof of guilt.
If this really was a nerve gas there are multiple unexplainable details. For example, the
doctor who fist treated both on the bench did not develop any symptoms. Another strange thing is
that handing of the case violated standard protocols of dealing with military agents (which
includes evacuation of the neighborhood). Another strange thing is why anybody on the scene is
still alive? Why Skripals developed symptoms on the bench if nerve against was in this home. Who
would be both instantly killed at home, if their home was contaminated with this substance.
So it might well be that Skripals suffered from something else. And nerve can well be
introduced later as a part of false flag operation against Russia, which used (can well be
accidental) collapse of both the Skripals (collapse, which can among other things be caused by
narcotics).
Note that No.2 and No.3 suggest that two agents were used.
Notable quotes:
"... whereas there was a doctor who looked after the patients in the open, who hasn't been affected at all ..."
"... the poison cannot have been fast-acting for them at home ..."
"... the poison was faster-acting for Sgt Bailey because he developed symptoms almost immediately at the Skripal house ..."
At the moment, according to police and government releases and the British state media, the
crime scene in Salisbury is being combed by at least 250 police officers; with another 180
military personnel specializing in chemical warfare. Dozens more electronic surveillance and
cyber-warfare agents are also engaged. The crime scene locations include the Skripal house; the
cemetery graves of Skripal's wife and son; the Mill public house where Skripal and his daughter
had a drink; the Zizzi restaurant where they ate before collapsing; and the public areas where
they walked between house, pub, restaurant, the Maltings shopping precinct, and park bench.
At least 240 pieces of evidence have reportedly been identified as such, not counting the
Skripal house, and 200 witnesses interviewed, including Wiltshire Police Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. He developed symptoms after being despatched to the Skripal house. That is, after
the Skripals had been found and hospitalized.
According to Lord Ian Blair, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, "there are some
indications that the police officer who was injured had been to the house, whereas there
was a doctor who looked after the patients in the open, who hasn't been affected at all .
So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Blair said this on the BBC.
His disclosure, also
confirmed in several newspapers, provides the first certainty in the case: the Skripals
came into contact with the poison for the first time inside their own home. They then went out
to the pub and the restaurant.
Certainty No. 2 – the poison cannot have been fast-acting for them at home
.
Certainty No. 3 – the poison was faster-acting for Sgt Bailey because he developed
symptoms almost immediately at the Skripal house .
Follow the next eleven certainties.
Certainty No. 4. Prime Minister Theresa May has identified the poison as a "military
grade nerve agent part of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok." Listen to May making her
announcement in the House of Commons yesterday.
... .... ...
After they had left their home on Sunday afternoon, the Skripals spent more than an hour
before developing symptoms. It is certain, therefore, that there were two sites of active
poisoning. The Skripals must have carried the poison from their home through the streets to the
mall, the pub, and the restaurant, before they were exposed. The large numbers of police,
special service agents and soldiers have been deployed in order to trace the route the Skripals
took, and all points at which they stopped, in order to identify, measure and map all
concentrations, then dilute or destroy them for public safety.
Certainty no. 7. The British forces have inventoried all contents of the Skripal
home, and verified all deliveries to the house, including mail and packages before last Sunday.
They are certain to know if there are traces of the chemical components required for the
Novichok combination, and whether these traces are in separate locations of the house. It is
certain they have asked themselves how the nerve agent was active in the house to strike Sgt
Bailey, but inactive for the Skripals until hours later.
Certainty No. 8. The British secret services and the Porton Down Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory near Salisbury know what contact, if any, there has been recently between
Skripal, his British secret service contacts and the Porton Down lab.
Certainty No. 9. The British Government agencies have informed Prime Minister May if
samples of Novichok components, and of the active nerve agent itself, are in stock at Porton
Down.
Certainty No. 10 The Prime Minister has not informed the House of Commons if Novichok
is -- or was until Sunday evening -- in stock at Porton Down.
Certainty No. 11 . Although the British, American, and Russian secret services have
the electronic capability to have been monitoring the Skripal house, Yulia Skripal on her
travel from Moscow to Salisbury, and Sergei Skripal at home, in advance of the poisoning, they
are unlikely to have been doing so on Sunday afternoon. British sources add that the security
perimeter for the Porton Down establishment doesn't extend the nine kilometres (twelve by road)
to Salisbury town.
However, it is certain, the sources acknowledge, that in retrospect the British and American
services will have identified all unusual mobile telephone, other electronic signals and
encrypted messaging around the Skripals on Sunday, including computer, internet and mobile
telephone signals the Skripals sent and received before the Sunday events. Just as certainly,
the Russian services will have the retrospective capacity to follow the communications of all
their agents in the vicinity, if any there were. It is sure that if there had been a Russian
operation targeting Skripal, an unusual volume of electronic evidence would now be visible to
the British and Americans -- and the Russians would know it.
If Skripal was actually murdered, that would be an indication of the MAGNITUDE of the problem
he posed to someone.
HENCE: almost certainly a clean-up operation by the Russiagate organizers in DC who are
beginning to feel the heat.
It may be that there is now another DC faction who has decided that Brennan's Russiagate
costume play has gone far enough and it's time for the adults to take over.
This was probably carried out by Mi6 for the Steel dossier reasons but also to bolster their
shattered ego's after Putin's announcement re his nuclear weapons. More sanctions will just
backfire as the last ones did and surely anything more than a symbolic response from NATO
would only happen if they are complete idiots......oh wait a minute!
"Today the Embassy sent a note to the Foreign Office reiterating that Russia is not involved
in the Salisbury incident and outlining the above mentioned demands for joint
investigation."
The embassy added: "UK Ambassador Laurence Bristow was summoned to Russia's ministry of
foreign affairs, where first deputy FM Vladimir Titov strongly protested the evidence-free
accusations by the UK authorities of Russia's alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
"It was stated that the actions of the UK authorities are a clear provocation and that the
Russian Federation was not involved in the incident that took place in Salisbury on March 4,
2018." * * *
Meanwhile, the Press Association reports that Russia has warned Britain to "consider the
consequences" of mounting a retaliatory cyber strike after the Salisbury spy poisoning.
In a fresh sign of the escalating diplomatic tension sparked by the case, the Russian
Embassy cautioned against "such a reckless move".
...
The Government has not publicly disclosed the options under consideration but reports on
Tuesday suggested one possibility was a cyber counter-attack.
Responding to the speculation, the Russian Embassy in the UK said: "Statements by a number
of MPs, 'Whitehall sources' and 'experts' regarding a possible 'deployment' of 'offensive
cyber-capabilities' cause serious concern.
"Not only is Russia groundlessly and provocatively accused of the Salisbury incident, but
apparently, plans are being developed in the UK to strike Russia with cyber weapons.
"Judging by the statements of the Prime Minister, such a decision can be taken at
tomorrow's meeting of the National Security Council.
"We invite the British side to once again consider the consequences of such a reckless
move."
Additionally, Zakharova stated that British Prime Minister Theresa May apparently
has no actual facts concerning the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence Colonel
Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
"No one knows anything, including Theresa May, who has no actual fact in her hands,"
Zakharova told the 60 Minutes program on the Rossiya-1 television channel.
Finally,
following reports that Britain's media regulator Ofcom said Russian broadcaster RT could
lose its UK licence if Theresa May's government determines that Moscow was behind the poisoning
of a former Russian double agent in England this month, Russia's foreign ministry threatened retaliation:
"...not a single British media outlet with work in Russia if London shuts RT."
Agreed. Who the fuck does May think she is? Other than confirming that this is a false
flag backed by a "rich uncle" with Russian sanctions and Nord Stream 2 front and centre?
So, with no evidence at all, the utterly incompetent PM, Theresa May, demands action from
Russia within 24 hours – which is completely different to the protocol set out in the
1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which has 165 signatories including the UK and Russia .
WTF!!!!
How can anyone have allowed her to make such an embarrassing error? Whoever is advising
her does not even know the terms of international agreements the UK has signed?
What on earth is going on? The PM is making a total laughing stock of the UK!
Yes, and the elites in Britain have had their own people under their thumb since forever.
Maybe, just maybe, we are going to start to the see the beginning of some grass root
movements to slice and dice some of the old guard. Just enough so the rest of them take
notice, or rather, are put on notice.
Dipshit may claimed that this "Novichok" nerve agent was used to kill thousands of people
during her rant, when it is clear that it NEVER made it past the laboratory and was used in a
small empty field test. And on top of that, Novichok hasn't been even seen by anyone since
the late 80's, it's actual existence is highly questionable... hell, knowing how drugs are,
the shit probably expired and broke down to something harmless after sitting around for 30+
years...
The UK won't release a sample of the nerve gas to Russia?
Because there maybe an impurity in the nerve gas? And the nerve agent sample could tell
Russia what production batch and the Russians would be able to track it. The UK is unwilling
to allow this.
It was reported, the nerve gas target was still working for Russia, sending data to the
Russian military. Proof of this would dispel the theory one of Russians defectors was killed
by the Russians. It doesn't make sense, and the Russians wouldn't kill an asset.
One should look at who has the most to gain from stirring it up against Russia.
Would Russia kill a defector who was working for the Russians? No. Would Russia kill
someone after Putin made the comment in the Megyn Kelly Putin interview, Putin saying if
someone gives us poison, the poison would be given back, or another translation, If they give
Russia poison, they will be consumed by their own poison.
The operative word is "poison". In the same interview Putin cites different nationalities
could be responsible for the alleged Russian meddling in the US presidential election. The
speculative Putin statement has been taking out of context by US media wanting to disrupt
Russia, Putin statement it could have been Jews doing the manipulation of the US presidential
election.
The nerve gas attack is the work of the Mossad. It is a warning to Putin.
A nerve gas attack in broad day light, at this time, wouldn't be a Russian tactic. The
Russians are smarter and more capable than using a Russian nerve agent.
It was TOO DRAMATIC made for TV propaganda. Netanyahu was making the Iran war speech in
NYC and then the Netahyahu and Trump stating the Iran war is on. Israel war hawk CIA director
Pompeo wouldn't risk it during the Russia election manipulation probe. Too dangerous with
limited reward. So no US gain.
Who gains? Israel and the plan to use the Americans as the beast of burden for a new round
of wars for Israel. Putin must be warned, and be made a permanent enemy with no possible
chance of a Russia US reset.
Kelly Putin interview "poison" and "Jew" both taken out of context.
double agent reporting to Russia is an asset for Russia
the new US Israel relation with promises from Trump to attack Iran.
"... He alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia's reputation. "Most probable source of this agent are the countries who have carried out research on these weapons, including Britain," Nebenzia said. ..."
"... The Russian ambassador sought to turn the tables on the UK, claiming that Theresa May's letter to the UN, outlining UK grounds for accusing Russia, was itself a "threat to a sovereign state". ..."
"... "The letter contains completely irresponsible statements which are even difficult for me to comment on using diplomatic vocabulary," the Russian envoy said. ..."
"... In her statement on behalf of the US, Haley said: "Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent," Haley said. ..."
UK spy poisoning: Russia tells UN it did not make nerve agent used in attack
Russian envoy suggests Britain itself may have been behind the attack as UK allies support London's assertion
... ... ...
In his response, the Russian envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, told the council: "No scientific research or development under
the title novichok were carried out." He alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended
to harm Russia's reputation. "Most probable source of this agent are the countries who have carried out research on these weapons,
including Britain," Nebenzia said.
The Russian ambassador sought to turn the tables on the UK, claiming that Theresa May's letter to the UN, outlining UK grounds
for accusing Russia, was itself a "threat to a sovereign state".
"The letter contains completely irresponsible statements which are even difficult for me to comment on using diplomatic vocabulary,"
the Russian envoy said.
He later told reporters that the case belonged at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague.
"We are ready to cooperate," he said.
Allen pointed out that the UK had already called in the OPCW to take part in the investigation. He described extensive evidence
that novichok nerve agents had been developed by the Soviet Union and bequeathed to Russia.
In her statement on behalf of the US, Haley said: "Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands
in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in
the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent," Haley said.
... ... ...
The French ambassador, François Delattre, made a similar declaration backing the UK position, offering "the full support and complete
solidarity of France for the UK".
The event develop under scenario, which is very close to Litvinenko poisoning and MH17
investigation. Both now are suspected to be false flag operation to demonize Russia.
How about conducting a chemical WMD strike in the heart of U.K? How about Mr. Putin,
O.J. Simpson style, saying "I didn't do it" while at the same time saying "the man deserves
to die." How about poisoning a British police officer who did his duty to render aid along
with about 20 other people? How about that even if the victims, your traitor along with
innocent U.K. citizens survive the immediate effects, they can become permanently disabled
and end up in a nursing home with people having to feed you and clean you up?
How about you admitting that you have not a shred of credible evidence for all your
hysterical hyperventilation about this trivial incident?
How about you admitting that you cannot produce any remotely credible motivation for
Russia doing this, when the costs to Russia of increased confrontation will massively
outweigh any possible gains?
The only suggestions that the Russians were responsible for the incident come from exactly
the same kinds of people who told us about Iraq's WMD and the supposed Libyan humanitarian
emergency. And yes, about supposed suicidal Syrian government uses of chemical weapons that
are conveniently just big enough to provide their enemies with yet another big stick to beat
them with, but not enough to give them any material advantage.
Basically your idea is that the Syrians and Russians do these things just because they
can, because in your opinion they are evil and stupid. And simultaneously, of course, so
fiendishly cunning that they are threats to the world if not suppressed.
"... Lavrov told reporters on Tuesday Moscow's requests to see samples of the nerve agent have been turned down, which he called a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production of chemical weapons. He insisted that Russia is "not to blame" for the poisoning. ..."
"... Lavrov said on Tuesday Moscow is willing to cooperate with the probe but suggested that London would be "better off" complying with its international obligations "before putting forward ultimatums." ..."
Britain says U.S. President Donald Trump has assured Prime Minister Theresa May that the
U.S. is "with the U.K. all the way" and said Russia must provide clear answers about the
nerve-agent poisoning of a former spy.
May's office says Trump and the British leader spoke by phone on Tuesday afternoon.
... ... ...
It says Trump "said the U.S. was with the U.K. all the way, agreeing that the
Russian government must provide unambiguous answers as to how this nerve agent came to be
used."
Russia says it will not meet a British deadline of midnight Tuesday to provide answers
unless the U.K. shares samples of the nerve agent
___
6:00 p.m.
Russia's Foreign Ministry has sternly warned Britain against shutting the office of Russian
state-funded RT television, saying it will lead to the closure of British media's bureaus in
Moscow.
The ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said in televised remarks Tuesday that "not a
single British media outlet will be able to work in our country if they close RT."
Zakharova's statement came in response to a warning by British media regulator Ofcom that RT
could be stripped of its broadcasting license in the U.K. in the wake of the nerve agent attack
on former spy Sergei Skripal.
Britain has given Russia until midnight Tuesday to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent
came to be used in an English city, or face retaliatory measures.
___
5:15 p.m.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says Russia must provide "quick answers to the legitimate
questions posed by the British government" about the poisoning of an ex-spy and his
daughter.
Merkel's office said the German leader spoke by phone on Tuesday with British Prime Minister
Theresa May and condemned the nerve agent attack "in the sharpest manner."
The chancellor assured May that she took Britain's assessment about Russia's likely
responsibility for the attack "extraordinarily seriously."
Merkel urged Russia to "comprehensively and immediately" reveal its chemical weapons program
to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
___
4:30 p.m.
A lawyer says a Russian businessman who had associated with a prominent critic of the
Kremlin who died in London in 2013 also has been found dead in the British capital.
Andrei Borovkov told Russian media outlets on Tuesday that his client, Nikolai Glushkov, has
died, but said he was unaware of the time and circumstances.
Reports in British and Russian media say Glushkov, who was in his late 60s, was found dead
at his home in southwest London.
London's Metropolitan Police force says officers are investigating the "unexplained" death
of a man found at a house in the New Malden area late Monday. It did not identify him by
name.
Glushkov was a friend of Boris Berezovsky, a Russian oligarch who died in London in 2013. An
inquest failed to determine whether he had killed himself or died from foul play.
London police say counterterrorism detectives are leading the investigation "as a precaution
because of associations that the man is believed to have had."
Police say there is no evidence to suggest a link to the March 4 poisoning of former spy
Sergei Skripal and his daughter.
___
3:50 p.m.
Britain's representative to the global chemical weapons watchdog says Russia has "failed for
many years to declare chemical weapons development programs which date from the 1970s" and
London has demanded that Moscow now "come clean."
Ambassador Peter Wilson told reporters Tuesday that London wants "Russia to declare these
programs now."
British Prime Minister Theresa May said Monday that a military-grade nerve agent was used in
the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia, and that
Russia was "highly likely" to blame.
Wilson also refuted a claim by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that Britain would be
breaching the treaty that outlaws chemical weapons if it refuses to share with Moscow samples
of the nerve agent.
___
3:35 p.m.
Britain's media regulator says Kremlin-backed news channel RT could lose its license to
broadcast in the U.K. in the wake of the nerve agent attack on former spy Sergei Skripal.
The channel has repeatedly been criticized by regulator Ofcom for breaching impartiality
standards, and some British lawmakers have called for it to be shut down.
The regulator said Tuesday that it has a duty "to be satisfied that broadcast licensees
remain fit and proper to hold their licenses."
Ofcom said it had written to ANO TV Novosti, which holds RT's U.K. broadcast licenses,
saying that if Russia is found to be behind the attack, "we would consider this relevant to our
ongoing duty to be satisfied that RT is fit and proper."
Britain has given Russia until midnight Tuesday to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent
came to be used in an English city, or face retaliatory measures.
___
3:10 p.m.
Denmark's prime minister has said "the use of chemical weapons in a peaceful English town
brings back memories of the Cold War."
Lars Loekke Rasmussen was commenting Tuesday on the poisoning of a former Russian spy and
his daughter in southern England.
Loekke Rasmussen told Denmark's TV2 that his country would consult "with our allies what
countermeasures it can lead to."
The Danish government leader also expressed "sympathy with the people affected and
solidarity with Britain."
May told Britain's Parliament it is "highly likely" Russia was to blame for the March 4
attack. British police and intelligence reports say that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia
Skripals were poisoned by a military grade nerve agent produced in Russia.
___
2:50 p.m.
The Russian Foreign Ministry says it has handed the British ambassador a note of protest
regarding the accusations leveled against Moscow over last week's poisoning of an ex-Russian
spy.
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia remain hospitalized in critical condition after being
exposed to a military-grade nerve agent.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed retaliatory measures if Russia offers no
explanation for how the nerve agent developed in the Soviet Union came to poison the former spy
and his daughter in a British city.
The Russian Foreign Ministry says it has summoned British Ambassador Laurie Bristow and
handed him a protest note over the "baseless accusations" leveled against Russia. The ministry
dismissed the reaction of British authorities to the attack as "provocative" and said it
suspects the poisoning is "another unscrupulous attempt of the British authorities to discredit
Russia."
___
2:30 p.m.
British police say the investigation into the chemical agent attack on a former Russian spy
will last many weeks, and that they are not declaring a person of interest yet in the
probe.
In a brief statement outside police headquarters, new counter-terror chief Neil Basu offered
more details on the movements of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia before they were
attacked in the English town of Salisbury on March 4. He appealed to the public to come forward
if they saw the pair that day.
Basu says the public will see much police activity in and around the city over the coming
days and that they should not be alarmed.
Basu also revealed for the first time that Skripal was a British citizen -- a fact that
might color the government's response to the incident.
___
2:15 p.m.
Germany's foreign minister says Berlin is "very concerned" about the poisoning of the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in England and is voicing solidarity with
Britain.
Sigmar Gabriel said in a statement that he spoke by phone Tuesday with British Foreign
Secretary Boris Johnson. He said that "we condemn this attack with a banned chemical weapon in
the strongest terms."
Gabriel said that the perpetrators must be brought to justice and added: "If it is confirmed
that Russia is behind this, that would be a very serious matter."
Gabriel is to be replaced as foreign minister by Heiko Maas, who is a member of the same
party, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel's new government takes office on Wednesday.
___
1:45 p.m.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said "it sounds" like Russia was responsible for the
poisoning of an ex-spy and his daughter in England.
Trump told reporters he will discuss the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in
southern England with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday.
"It sounds to me that they believe it was Russia and I would certainly take that finding as
fact," Trump said. He added the U.S. will condemn Russia if it agrees with Britain's
findings.
His comments came after May told Parliament it is "highly likely" Russia was to blame for
the attack.
British police and intelligence reports say that the Skripals were poisoned by a military
grade nerve agent produced in Russia.
___
12:40 p.m.
British police have cordoned off a parking lot ticketing machine in the southwestern city of
Salisbury as authorities retraced the steps of a former Russian spy and his daughter targeted
in a chemical weapons attack.
The ticketing machine near a shopping center in Salisbury, 90 miles (145 kilometers)
southwest of London, was covered by a tent similar to those at other sites where Sergei Skripal
and his daughter Yulia were seen during a March 4 excursion into the city.
A bench where the pair were found and markers for Skripal's son and wife in a nearby
graveyard are also beneath tents.
Authorities say the pair were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent and that Russia is
"highly likely" to be behind it. Prime Minister Theresa May is demanding an explanation.
___
12:25 p.m.
The French Foreign Ministry says the nerve agent attack on former spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter in Britain is "a totally unacceptable attack."
Without mentioning Russia, the ministry said in a statement that France repeatedly expressed
"its refusal of impunity for those who use or develop toxic agents."
According to the statement, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian spoke with his British
counterpart, Boris Johnson, to express France's solidarity to "a top and strategic ally."
___
12:20 p.m.
A senior European Union official is calling for an EU-wide response to the poisoning of a
former spy amid questions over whether Russia is to blame.
European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said Tuesday that "we cannot have nerve
gas being used in our societies. This should be addressed by all of us."
He told EU lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, that "it is of the utmost importance that those
who are responsible for what has happened see very clearly that there is European solidarity,
unequivocal, unwavering and very strong."
Timmerman's appeal is a show of solidarity amid tense negotiations on Britain's departure
from the EU next year.
Ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent in
England last week and remain in critical condition.
___
Noon
British Home Secretary Amber Rudd says police and the domestic security service will look
into a number of deaths in Britain that may be linked to Russia.
In a letter made public Tuesday, Rudd says the government takes seriously allegations that
some 14 deaths may have some links to Russia.
"In the weeks to come, I will want to satisfy myself that the allegations are nothing more
than that," Rudd said. "The police and MI5 agree and will assist in that endeavor."
BuzzFeed News reported in 2017 that some 14 deaths in Britain and the United States dating
back to 2006 may have been linked to Russia. The cases include some prominent critics of
Russian President Vladimir Putin including oligarch Boris Berezovsky and whistle-blower
Alexander Perepilichny.
The list also includes former spy Alexander Litvinenko, killed by radioactive tea in 2006, a
killing that British officials have linked to the Russian government.
___
11:50 a.m.
The British representative to the world's chemical weapons watchdog says it is highly likely
that Russia is implicated in the nerve agent attack on a former spy and his daughter "by
failure to control its own materials or by design."
Ambassador Peter Wilson told the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons on Tuesday that "I did not expect to have to brief this council on the
first offensive use of a nerve agent of any sort on European territory since World War II."
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter had been poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed in the Soviet
Union.
Wilson has called the attack "not just a crime against the Skripals. It was an
indiscriminate and reckless act against the U.K., which put the lives of innocent civilians at
risk." His comments to the closed-door meeting were tweeted by his delegation.
___
11:30 a.m.
The chairwoman of the upper chamber of the Russian parliament says Britain is trying to
influence this weekend's Russian presidential election by accusing Moscow of poisoning an
ex-spy.
Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent in an
English city last week and are in the hospital in critical condition.
Valentina Matviyenko, who is the third most senior official in Russia, said on Tuesday the
British prime minister's statement aims to "exert influence and pressure" on the March 18
vote.
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday Russia is "highly likely" to be
responsible for the attack.
___
11:20 a.m.
A former chief of Russia's main domestic intelligence agency says another post-Soviet nation
could be the source of a rare nerve agent that Britain said was responsible for poisoning a
Russian ex-spy in an English city last week.
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday that Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter had been poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed in
the Soviet Union near the end of the Cold War.
Nikolai Kovalyov, former chief of the FSB, told the Russian news agency on Tuesday that
Novichok used to be stored in different parts of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, which
have since become independent nations, and that Ukraine or another post-Soviet nation could be
the source of it.
Britain has asked the Russian ambassador in London to explain how the nerve agent turned up
in the English city of Salisbury, leaving Skripal and his adult daughter in critical
condition.
___
11:15 a.m.
Russian news agencies say the Foreign Ministry has summoned the British ambassador in Moscow
over the poisoning of a Russian ex-spy.
The foreign ministry was quoted by Russian wires as saying that the ambassador must visit
the ministry later on Tuesday.
Britain says a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union was used in the
poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. It has demanded a response from Moscow.
___
10:40 a.m.
The chief of the world's chemical weapons watchdog says that those responsible for the nerve
agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter "must be held accountable."
In a speech Tuesday to the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
called him Monday evening to inform him of the results of investigations into the attack on
66-year-old Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia.
British Prime Minister Theresa May told Parliament that Russia is "highly likely" to blame
for poisoning Skripal and his daughter with a military-grade nerve agent.
Uzumcu says that, "It is extremely worrying that chemical agents are still being used to
harm people. Those found responsible for this use must be held accountable for their
actions."
Uzumcu's comments to the closed-door meeting were released by the OPCW.
___
10:30 a.m.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Russia will only cooperate with Britain on the
investigation into last week's poisoning of an ex-Russian spy if it receives samples of the
nerve agent that is believed to have sickened the ex-spy and his daughter.
Lavrov told reporters on Tuesday Moscow's requests to see samples of the nerve agent have
been turned down, which he called a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws
the production of chemical weapons. He insisted that Russia is "not to blame" for the
poisoning.
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter had been poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed in the Soviet
Union. May said Russia has until the end of Tuesday to explain how the substance ended up in
Britain.
Lavrov said on Tuesday Moscow is willing to cooperate with the probe but suggested that
London would be "better off" complying with its international obligations "before putting
forward ultimatums."
___
9:35 a.m.
Britain's government is considering how to deal with the poisoning of an ex-spy as it awaits
a Russian government response to its claim that Russian was involved.
Officials said Tuesday Prime Minister Theresa May is reviewing a range of economic and
diplomatic measures.
May has said it is "highly likely" Russia was involved in the nerve agent poisoning of
66-year-old Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia. Both remain in critical
condition.
The prime minister says Russia has until the end of Tuesday to explain its actions in the
case, which focuses on a former Russian military intelligence officer who was convicted of
spying for Britain and then released in a spy swap.
Former foreign minister David Miliband has urged May to seek support from Europe and the
United States.
Trump is President today because in the Republican primaries he faced a fractured slate, many
of whom, like Trump, had no business thinking they should be President; and in the election,
he faced a corrupt government grifter without political talent whose only salient asset was
that she was the wife of a former President, the one who destroyed the bully pulpet. Without
the Clintons, there is no Trump.
Trump assumed office with no political friends, with some good ideas that resonated with
old line Democrats and people who were tired of 16 years of a disastrous over militarized
foreign policy and aimless failing or failed interventions; but unfortunately he had neither
tactics, strategy, or personnel to carry those ideas forward; and as if these deficits
weren't enough, through some combination of misfeasance and malfeasance, the outgoing
Administration, the Intelligence swamp, and the Democratic Party extremists combined to
cripple him with a hastily concocted crisis in our relations with Russia. Finally, Trump did
not help himself by surrounding himself with Generals and family members, something he had
not signaled he would be doing during the campaign.
Trump tapped Tillerson for State precisely because it was reasonable at the time to
believe that Tillerson could be instrumental in restoring correct relations with Russia.
Alas, it was not to be: neither Trump nor Tillerson were up to steering out of the maelstrom.
Still, Trump did not serve himself well by the chickenshit way he got rid of Tillerson.
So how are things now lining up: Trump; Mattis; Pompeo; a career bureaucrat from an
undistinguished time frame (to say the least) at CIA: and the perfectly awful, hopelessly
unqualified, ranting fool, Nikki Haley.
Over in GB, Theresa May lays down a 24 hr ultimatum: does this idiot know what an
ultimatum is and what it means and where it leads? Is there a .300 hitter in the bunch?
The UK and Israeli elites undoubtedly count among the second order "influencers" that I
mentioned, but in the end the US can't use them as excuses. They are only allowed to
"influence" the US so strongly because it suits so many powerful people in the US for them to
do so, and the "influence" certainly goes both ways, in Britain's case at any rate.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Israel has been manipulating US
policy and culture for decades, and Britain has been doing so for a century and more.
However, it's a bit absurd to pretend that the scope and scale of British "influence" has
even approached that of Israel and its lobbies, certainly in recent decades. British
"influence" is nowadays mostly just being useful for particular factions within US politics
and government.
"... In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016) ..."
"... Additionally the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not recognized Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. ..."
"... [The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to "Novichoks". The name "Novichok" is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013) ..."
"... Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for this is obviously bollocks. ..."
"... But most disturbing about the case are not the false claims Theresa May makes. She is in deep political trouble over the Brexit negotiations and other issues and needs any political diversion that she can get. Blaming Russia for something is en vogue and might help her for a while. ..."
"... No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that May's claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims. The only paper that is somewhat skeptical is the Irish Times ..."
"... The British opposition leader Corbyn was right today when he demanded that she produces evidence for her claims. A few more pushes and her house of cards will surely come down. ..."
"... it seems to me Russia bashing is really en vogue and nobody important comes out to call May - and Boris - miserable liars. We are lingering at the border of a mayor war. ..."
"... remembering what was written by Arthur Conan Doyle: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". ..."
"... I have little faith that the truth will change matters since it will be suppressed by the anti-Russian media and the political class. It's very depressing--although not surprising--that we find ourselves in this state. ..."
"... Its amazing how easily propaganda works in the west, this is nothing but a psy-operation. ..."
"... Surely the British must have CCTV footage of the perpetrator. Why is does not one seem to be interested in who the person is? Why are there no descriptions from staff and patrons? ..."
"... If they have not been able to identify the perpetrator, why have they not published photos and tried to identify this person. If the perpetrator is still at large in the UK, are they not a threat to other people? Why are the British not trying to find this person? ..."
"... Corbyn is being savaged in the corporate press for questioning May's proof. There's even a hint of yet another leadership challenge within in Labour. If the Blairites are able to claim Corbyn's scalp based on this, one has to truly marvel at the miracle powers of propaganda. ..."
"... Information-, propaganda- and proxy war against Russia had begun in 2012 at least ..."
"... WWIII has already started and we are just witnessing the latest battle/scrimmage. ..."
"... Worthwhile to add the rush to judgement into the "claims fall apart" mix? As the Russians pointed out at OPCW meeting, there's a longstanding agreed procedure to investigating claims of chemical weapons use. ..."
"... Since I read about the "sanctions" I am quite sure, this isn't about Russia at all. It is about blackmailing the EU. Additional stopping North Stream 2. ..."
"... After 6 years of attacks on Putin the only shocking is that we see weak and meek response of Russians for another provocation. Did they not know for sure that a series of provocations were and are coming? ..."
"... This Global McCarthysm is nothing but the expression of panic among political puppets of oligarchic ruling elite that their embellishments are no longer effective in fooling and dividing of population into self destructive herds and that they themselves will be disposed of when their no longer effective lies will be replaced by war and violence within societies all over the world. ..."
Theresa May's 'Novichok' Claims Fall Further Apart
The British government claims that
'Novichok' poisons, developed 30 years ago in the Soviet Union, affected a British double
agent. Such substances may not exits at all.
The 'whistleblower' for the 'Novichok' program and poisons published some chemical formulas
that should enable any decent laboratory to reproduce them. But neither the existence of the
claimed program nor the existence of the alleged substances were ever accepted by the
scientific community.
The highly constructed drama around the alleged
poisoning of a British double agent Skripal and his daughter has thus turned into a surreal
play. The British government has so far given no evidence that the Skripal's were poisoned at
all, or were poisoned by someone else. No detailed medical bulletin was published. The British
accusations against Russia lets one assume that a suicide attempt has been excluded. Why?
There is no independent evaluation of the alleged poison. The British government claims that
its own chemical weapon laboratory at Porton Down, only a few miles from where the incident
happened, has identified the poison as one of the 'Novichok' chemicals.
But in 2016 a leading chemist at Porton Down published a piece in a scientific journal that
denied that such chemicals exist. (Tim Hayword and Craig Murray both
point this
out ):
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's only
chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in
an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks
was scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)
Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents.
Royal Society of Chemistry
Additionally the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not
recognized Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at
all. The U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this
evaluation:
The OPCW's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) appeared to doubt the existence of "Novichoks",
and did not advise that the compounds described by Mirzayanov, or their precursors, should be
designated as Scheduled Chemicals that should be controlled under the Chemical Weapons
Convention:
[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would
cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding
new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a
risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to "Novichoks". The name "Novichok" is used
in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve
agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient
information to comment on the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013)
The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanjaov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the
'Novichoks', now lives in a $1 million home in the
United States. The AFP news agency just interviewed
him:
Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia
carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
"Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They kept it
and are still keeping it in secrecy."
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book
to make such a weapon.
"Russia did it", says Mirzanjaov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".
The book was published in 2008 and is available
as hardcover, paperback or for $8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas
which, Mirzanjaov says, could be used to produce those chemical agents. But neither Porton Down
nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may believe that Mirzanjaov is just
full of it.
One customer reviewing Mirzanjaov's book
remarked :
[Needs] an editor to throttle back his epic "i'm an epic awesome martyr" stuff and stick to
the science.
State secrets is by far the most long winded and painfully slow novel on chemical weapons
written by a disgruntled defected scientist from Russia I have ever read! If you want to hear
an employ with delusions of grandeur moan about every person he ever worked with then this is
the book for you, otherwise don't waste your sweet time. Seriously! Nothing happens except
Vil somethingkov helps make things that kill people for 30 years, gets a (sort of)
conscience, defects, and constantly whinges about.....everything.
Vil Mirzanjaov promoted his book in a 2009 video . Shortly after he published
his book he blogged
an explanation why he included formulas in it:
While I was writing my book "State Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical
Weapons Program", some people from Washington persistently advised me not to include the
formulas of the chemical agents of the Novichok series in my book.
...
I asked why it would be a bad idea to publish this information, since it would be for the
safety of all people. Then the governments would work to have those chemical agents and their
precursors included into the Control List. They responded, "Terrorists could use them for
their criminal actions." This kind of reasoning is used all the time now to scare people and
prevent any discussion. We are already used to ignoring a lot of real problems thanks to
that.
Mirzanjaov further points out that only experienced personal in well equipped laboratories
would be able to use his formulas. State actors have such laboratories, like the British Porton
Down, but terrorists do not have such capabilities.
Mirzanjaov urged to included the substances he described into the OPCW list of controlled
material. But the OPCW, as seen above, rejected that. Neither its scientific board nor the head
of a Porton Down laboratory were convinced that these substances or the Soviet program
Mirzanjaov described existed at all.
The Soviet chemical weapon laboratory in which Mirzanjaov had worked was in Uzbekistan, not
in Russia as Theresa May falsely claims. The laboratory was dismantled with the
active help of the United States .
Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly
questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for this is obviously
bollocks.
The existence of the substances as described by Vil Mirzanjaov is in serious doubt. But if
he is right then any state or company with a decent laboratory and competent personal can
produce these substances from the formulas and descriptions he provides in his book. That is at
least what Mirzanjaov himself says.
But most disturbing about the case are not the false claims Theresa May makes. She is in
deep political trouble over the Brexit negotiations and other issues and needs any political
diversion that she can get. Blaming Russia for something is en vogue and might help her for a
while.
No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that
May's claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims. The
only paper that is somewhat skeptical is the Irish Times which
finds it highly unlikely that the Russian government is behind the poisoning.
May demanded and got a NATO meeting on the case. But the statement NATO issued afterwards was
extremely weak. It only offered support in conducting the British investigation and it asked
Russia to respond to the British questions. Neither did it support the claims May made, nor did
it take any measures against Russia. A French spokesperson said "We don't do fantasy politics"
and demanded '
definite conclusions ' on the case before deciding anything. No support was given to May by
the Trump administration.
The story May wants to tell has way too much holes to be sustainable. The involvement of the
British double agent Skripal
in the fake Steele dossier about Trump is likely the real story behind the incident. No
international support is coming for May. The British opposition leader Corbyn was right
today when he demanded that she produces evidence for her claims. A few more pushes and her
house of cards will surely come down.
Posted by b on March 14, 2018 at 03:17 PM | Permalink
Interesting that a Senate Democrat of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Robert Menendez, brings
in the case of the murder of Kim Jong Un´s brother, Kim Jong-Nama, since, for the same
token, on the arbitrarious asignation of guilt against Russia for having fabricated Novichok
in the past decades, the poisonous substance which finished Kim Jong-Un´s brother was
the nerve agent VX, as well fabricated by the UK in the past, and probably also today, as was
stated by Annie Machon in the last Crosstalk by Peter Lavelle about this case.
Thus, the same requests made to the Russian governement, we assume, could well be directed to
Theresa May´s government.
What this pantomime is about, is that those West countries implicated in the Syrian
nightmare, seeing their terrorists proxies being definitely defeated and so their goals sent
to waste, at the hands of the SAA and their allies, amongst whom they are the RF, do not know
already what to invent next to try to paint Russia as the agressor when it is getting
increasingly clear, even in the public light, out of the so called "alt-media", that that
label fits better with them.
They, simply, are in panicking that Mr. Putin gets elected once more time and the paradigm
shift is definitely completed....
For desperation, they even do not bother to appoint people who carry a warrant for abuse
of human rights in Europe...Although this increasingly resembles a western titled "The City
Without Law"....
Another question would be, why none of the affected by the alleged poisoning have been yet
accesed by any relative or official of its country ( as could be the case of Yulia Skripal )
since they did not died after all..... You go to see whether this is real or is simply a new
"Manequin Challenge" like those performed by the "White Helmets", a renowned, even at Oscars
level, broadcasting enterprise created by another MI6 "ex-spy", James LeMesurier....This
increasingly seem to be the next profit niche of London...Theater!...But of the worst
kind...
Not to mention that there are some declaration by a female doctor, who arrived at the
event location at the first moments, and who was not affected in any way by any poison, on
the contrary to the alleged poisoned policeman placed some meters away...
Also, it is said that the Skripals went out of the restaurant where they were eating quite
airated, arguing...
Enough data to take months of inquiries even for the very sharp Sherlock Holmes...Even
"Murder in the Orient Express" took, well, a whole travel in the orient Express of the
lasting of those of past decades, to be solved by Agatha Christie....That Theresa May and the
Democrats/Republicans in the USA, have already the case solved speaks volumes of cui
bono ....and who could be interested in solving the case asap without any evidence and a
proper investigation to their benefit...
Note to spies: if ever becoming a Russian spy and then deciding to switch sides--DO NOT go to
London. No UK, period. Mexico or Argentina increasingly look attractive. LOL.
Interesting. I hope you're right with your confidence. Although it seems to me Russia bashing
is really en vogue and nobody important comes out to call May - and Boris - miserable liars.
We are lingering at the border of a mayor war.
Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous
politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several
pitchers full each.
Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first
meeting with Lavrov or Putin.
The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the
corrupt.
In the MEF Territorial Office in Salisbury, England, the Inspector Watson summarizes to
Commissioner Golphar the known facts:
"- a man was found unconscious in a park;
- he turns out to be a former Russian spy who worked for Britain in the '90s, arrested but
freed by the Russians themselves 8 years ago.
from the analysis it turns out to have been contaminated with a substance created in the
former Soviet Union decades ago ... that has hit also other people nearby"
The Inspector halts to speak for a while, then asks loudly: "Who could have been to do all
that?"
"Elementary, my dear Watson", the Commissioner immediately responds with a flash of
cunning in his eyes: "It was Russia, of course!"
But immediately afterwards he becomes pensive and among himself says in a low voice:
"... or not?", remembering what was written by Arthur Conan Doyle: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact".
In the homeland of Sherlock Holmes, does anyone remember that sentence?
In the House of Commons and the UK press, May's ploy sure is working. Now she is a "War Prime
Minister" who may be able to hang onto power -- and even gain more powers through legislation.
Let's not forget that in the US, Bush 2 was failing miserably until 9/11 -- then his rating
zoomed up and America happily went to war behind him, or at least its hapless soldiers did.
Even if the UK's far -- fetched narrative is shown to be completely inaccurate, I have little
faith that the truth will change matters since it will be suppressed by the anti-Russian
media and the political class. It's very depressing--although not surprising--that we find
ourselves in this state.
I imagine the Tories are chortling right now with little thought that they are bringing a
world war closer through their reckless actions.
i) Absolutely deadly - you need total body protection with positive pressure suit and
self-contained rebreather.
ii) Just your average toxic industrial chemical - tyvek suit, boots, gloves and gasmask.
iii) Meh - come across worse on a Friday night outside a curry house.
iv) All of the above
at the same time.
Its amazing how easily propaganda works in the west, this is nothing but a psy-operation. Anyway, there seems to be a one effort to kick Russia out of UNSC by the brittish as a
"response".
May trying to be Maggie. Haha. I have never read spy novels, so there are a few things about this incident that I don't
understand.
• If the Skripals were hit with a military grade toxin, why are they not dead?
• If they were being taken out by the FSB, MI6, CIA, or even Mossad, surely they
would have done the job properly?
• Even if Skripal contributed dodgy info to Steel dossier, why would that justify
silencing him?
• Why would anyone do a hit in a pizza care in mid-afternoon, when the perpetrator
would be obvious to staff and patrons? Would not an ex-spy be on the alert for an attack in
such a place.
• Surely the British must have CCTV footage of the perpetrator. Why is does not one
seem to be interested in who the person is? Why are there no descriptions from staff and
patrons?
• If the British have identified the person from CCTV footage, why are they not
slamming the Russians with their identity, rather than making vague claims about the source
of the toxin.
•If they have not been able to identify the perpetrator, why have they not published
photos and tried to identify this person. If the perpetrator is still at large in the UK, are
they not a threat to other people? Why are the British not trying to find this person?
There is a different possibility that no one seems to have raised: Skripal is old and ill. His son died recently. He is stuck in dreary England, separated
from his friends and family. He has become depressed. His daughter came to visit because she
was concerned about his mental health. He decided to commit suicide and put his daughter's
shame to an end. As an ex-spy, he had a suicide pill. He used it to kill himself and his
daughter. He failed to complete the task.
Corbyn is being savaged in the corporate press for questioning May's proof. There's even
a hint of yet another leadership challenge within in Labour. If the Blairites are able to
claim Corbyn's scalp based on this, one has to truly marvel at the miracle powers of
propaganda.
The statement of OPCW 2013 means nothing at all. The Scientific Advisory Board "included US,
French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK
representative" (Murray). Information-, propaganda- and proxy war against Russia had begun in
2012 at least. So in the SAB they had a stalemate. Russia couldn't say anything without
incriminating itself, the Germans normally know nothing and the representatives of US, French
and UK could well have had motives to be quiet about things they knew or had.
Two years ago, the Independent reported on new historical research which found that during
the Cold War, the British government "used the general public as unwitting biological and
chemical warfare guinea pigs on a much greater scale than previously thought."
...
Less well-known, though, is the fact that members of the British armed forces "were
experimented on with Sarin, the deadly nerve gas, as late as 1983 at the Government's
defence research centre at Porton Down," according to Ministry of Defence documents
obtained by The Telegraph. Operation Antler, as the police investigation into the
experiments was called, found that the nerve agent trials had gone on as late as 1989.
thanks b.. this story is a load of bs with nothing substantive to back it up.. and of course
the scribes for the empire are only too willing to not ask questions! i look forward to the
time when sanity returns to international affairs.. at this point, russia seems like the only
stand up player on the scene...
i love the info you found in mirzanjaov.. "Russia did it", says Mirzanjaov, "OR SOMEONE
WHO READ MY BOOK". - brilliant!! i guess that pays for the house and all else... you are a
good stooge mirzanjaov!
# b who wrote:
"
No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that May's
claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims.
"
We read your blog because those media organizations are controlled by the same elite that
have their fist up May's ass.
The City of London was around before the US Fed, as was the British empire. I read
recently that London has the most millionaires of any city in the world.
The God of Mammon religion is my name for the global private financial system (BIS, SWIFT,
IMF, World Bank, etc) and all the national private Central Banks and the money systems within
all Western nations. That "sacred" construct of our social contract is under attack and what
you see is their response so far.
WWIII has already started and we are just witnessing the latest battle/scrimmage. When/if
there is another Bretton Woods meeting of the geopolitical elite to decide where the
financial control will/should be going forward, then we will see if the centuries old cabal
of families that have ruled our world will give up that power or reset the human experiment
with nukes.
Worthwhile to add the rush to judgement into the "claims fall apart" mix? As the Russians
pointed out at OPCW meeting, there's a longstanding agreed procedure to investigating claims
of chemical weapons use.
(Following up the other thread) Since I read about the "sanctions" I am quite sure, this
isn't about Russia at all. It is about blackmailing the EU. Additional stopping North Stream
2.
Stopping North Stream might well be a zero-sum game for Russia. It can't fail sustaining
the world price of gas and this might compensate Russia for disadvantages of Asian
markets
Some good questions there, but better than the CCTV footage would be hearing the MI6
person in charge of supervising every movement by Skripal, since, as claimed by Annie Machon
at the same Crosstalk program I pointed out at my previous comment, every double agent has
its own agent behind it, as a protection protocol ( and also for securing he is not a
triple...I guess )...
Nah, EU is of course as hysterical against Russia as UK is, but what can they do? Why
should they do anything is another question.
Its like these people are looking for war all because a Russian spy is hurt. Are they
insane?
The Official Enemy always does *exactly* the wrong thing:
- Saddam Hussein hid WMD even as war loomed
- Gaddafi ordered a massacre certain to bring 'intervention'
- Assad launched a gas attack exactly as inspectors entered Damascus
- And now Putin...
I haven't yet seen the Russian Ambassador yet, but the UN Security Council's special
meeting over this had been universally condemning Russia/Putin. Naturally, this was
especially full-throated from Trump's UN Embarrasor, Nimrata "Nikki" Randhawa "Haley."
What would be required to have Russia removed from the UNSC?
AT the UN, the US provides evidence
supporting the UK's claim that 'Putin done it' in the Skirpal case.
By one of those amazing coincidences, the western media has rediscovered the MH17
incident, and the infamous Spanish air traffic controller Carlos. He has been interviewed by
Radio Liberty and a group of Romanian investigative journalists. He claims he received
$48,000 USD from 'Russian sources' for his part in the incident.
221 john gilberts.. thanks.. nice to know the loser freeland is being given a large platform
to her anti russia rhetoric under the canuck flag too.. geez, but sometimes i wish canada
wasn't so stupid and dishonest catering to the usa and etc, but alas.. as a canuck i am very
disappointed that she is anywhere near a position of power.. working with soros has it's
merits..
@24 tomgard.. i think blackmailing the eu is a smaller part of it..i could be wrong..
isolating russia seems like the main meal.. russia is viewed as a threat by the usa/uk and
probably a few other players that will go unnamed..
@33 daniel question.. i am sure china would go along with it, lol - NOT... in fact - they
would be next... too bad the un security council actually represents a few level headed
players - the uk/usa not being one of them!
Fucking Theresa May should stick to do her job, as in protecting British citizens and
ensuring their safety. Like, for instance, in Telford, where more than thousand kids have
been gang-raped for decades, and authorities kept shut about it - a case that the usually
very loud Me-Too crowd is being suspiciously quiet about as well. But no, it's so much easier
just to make shit up and bash Russia like the Brits have been doing since Crimean War.
In case some haven't,
Craig Murray's essay b linked to and I relink here is quite the blockbuster, or rather
Maybuster. Russia's UNSC rep only needed to announce Craig's conclusion to destroy the
credibility of UK, US, France, and any other nation stupid enough to back May's crazy
assertions.
As Garrie proposes , May certainly rivals Blair for worst UK PM ever.
After looking at this for the second time, it appears there is a possible way. It appears
a precedent was set via UN General Assembly Resolution, UN Res. 1668 & 2758, where
support from 2/3 of the membership is needed. Although the resolutions addressed specifically
to the China/Taiwan question, it could be used against Russia. However, it requires an
alternate capital with support from a significant population.
Another obstacle I see is from pro-UN supporters, who wouldn't tolerate Russia, or any
other nation, being excluded from the UN. By allowing any member to leave the UN would be
repeating the mistakes from it's predecessor, League of Nations. Yes, there's been cases
where nations stopped it's participation, but the UN didn't consider them gone; just absent.
The UN concept was never meant to be some governing body. Unfortunately, there's considerable
efforts to make it one.
In the end, the possibility of excluding Russia from either the UNSC and or UN is
ZERO.
After 6 years of attacks on Putin the only shocking is that we see weak and meek response of
Russians for another provocation. Did they not know for sure that a series of provocations
were and are coming?
Will the wait another 6 months to expel British MI6 spies masquerading as diplomats this time
because of coming Easter and children of those agents of war and death may suffer spoiled
holidays.
It is clear now that this timid response is due to Russian oligarchs, Putin supporters,
vital interests in the west are being challenged or even threatened.
Did they not know that in medical schools of psychiatry they warn new doctors not to
succumb to mental patient's delusions by trying to reason with him or her, trying to explain
reality since it only aggravates psychosis and leads to violence.
This Global McCarthysm is nothing but the expression of panic among political puppets of
oligarchic ruling elite that their embellishments are no longer effective in fooling and
dividing of population into self destructive herds and that they themselves will be disposed
of when their no longer effective lies will be replaced by war and violence within societies
all over the world.
The Soviet Union boycotted UNSC meetings some time around the Korean War -- that is how the
imperialist forces got to call themselves UN forces, because USSR didn't veto the resolutions
in question.
Where the idea came from that Russia could be removed from the SC I have no idea, it is a
nonsense reflecting the propaganda overhang that the US and its satellites can do anything
that they want. They can't. And their power is declining daily.
This idiocy from the UK is a direct measurement of the actual impotence of the UK government
which has nothing left to do but to scare up the elderly (most people under 50 either don't
follow the MSM or know them to be lying) the only demographic that will support them in an
election. The story is aimed at embarrassing Corbyn, who they hate and fear, by calling up
the Blairites to disassociate themselves from Labour.
It has worked: the usual treacherous MPs, the remains of those who pushed for war in Iraq and
called for war in Libya and Syria, have come out in support of May and the MI6. This makes it
much more likely that they will not be running for Labour again. Which is good news.
The bad news is that so long as b and the handful of bloggers like him continue to shoot down
these propaganda balloons when they are still only a few dozen feet in the air, the Political
caste and the Ruling Class will attempt to silence them.
Mercouris at
The Duran provides more info related to additional threats and their counters.
Just one example:
"Meanwhile the Russians have also been accusing the British of ignoring the Chemical
Weapons Convention, which they say stipulates joint investigations of incidents like the
Skripal attack."
Certainly not least, it's suggested that May didn't listen to what Putin had to say on 1
March.
March Madness, and I don't mean basketball. Western nations lack diplomats and sane
leaders not led by Big Lies. I read the Doomsday Clock to declare 11:59:45!
I worked on Pathogen security and storage in UZ (as well as GE, KZ others) and they ain't
secure take my word for it.
Wanna steal something nasty? Just bribe the staff at the Georgia NCDC in Tbilisi (for
example) . Would love to have stayed in UZ but they closed Juliano's . No reason to extend
contract there!
The speed with which British authorities blades Putin strongly suggests false flag operation: "I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles."
Notable quotes:
"... From Putin's point of view, to assassinate Skripal now seems to have very little motivation. If the Russians have waited eight years to do this, they could have waited until after their World Cup. The Russians have never killed a swapped spy before. ..."
"... Just as diplomats, British and otherwise, are the most ardent upholders of the principle of diplomatic immunity, so security service personnel everywhere are the least likely to wish to destroy a system which can be a key aspect of their own personal security; quite literally spy swaps are their "Get Out of Jail Free" card. You don't undermine that system – probably terminally – without very good reason. ..."
"... It is worth noting that the "wicked" Russians gave Skripal a far lighter jail sentence than an American equivalent would have received. If a member of US Military Intelligence had sold, for cash to the Russians, the names of hundreds of US agents and officers operating abroad, the Americans would at the very least jail the person for life, and I strongly suspect would execute them. Skripal just received a jail sentence of 18 years, which is hard to square with the narrative of implacable vindictiveness against him. If the Russians had wanted to make an example, that was the time. ..."
"... Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover than Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active in the internet scrubbing. ..."
"... It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate" affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely demolish, as I did here . ..."
"... If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence. ..."
"... To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia. ..."
"... Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation, and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to Salisbury to attack Skriapin with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point. ..."
"... I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. ..."
The "novochok" group of nerve agents – a very loose term simply for a collection of
new nerve agents the Soviet Union were developing fifty years ago – will almost certainly
have been analysed and reproduced by Porton Down. That is entirely what Porton Down is there
for. It used to make chemical and biological weapons as weapons, and today it still does make
them in small quantities in order to research defences and antidotes. After the fall of the
Soviet Union Russian chemists made a lot of information available on these nerve agents.
And one country which has always manufactured very similar persistent nerve agents is Israel.
This Foreign Policy magazine (a very establishment US publication) article
on Israel 's chemical and biological weapon capability is very interesting indeed. I will
return to Israel later in this article.
Incidentally, novachok is not a specific substance but a class of new nerve agents. Sources
agree they were designed to be persistent, and of an order of magnitude stronger than sarin or
VX. That is rather hard to square with the fact that thankfully nobody has died and those
possibly in contact just have to wash their clothes.
From Putin's point of view, to assassinate Skripal now seems to have very little
motivation. If the Russians have waited eight years to do this, they could have waited until
after their World Cup. The Russians have never killed a swapped spy before.
Just as diplomats, British and otherwise, are the most ardent upholders of the principle
of diplomatic immunity, so security service personnel everywhere are the least likely to wish
to destroy a system which can be a key aspect of their own personal security; quite literally
spy swaps are their "Get Out of Jail Free" card. You don't undermine that system –
probably terminally – without very good reason.
It is worth noting that the "wicked" Russians gave Skripal a far lighter jail sentence
than an American equivalent would have received. If a member of US Military Intelligence had
sold, for cash to the Russians, the names of hundreds of US agents and officers operating
abroad, the Americans would at the very least jail the person for life, and I strongly suspect
would execute them. Skripal just received a jail sentence of 18 years, which is hard to square
with the narrative of implacable vindictiveness against him. If the Russians had wanted to make
an example, that was the time.
It is much more probable that the reason for this assassination attempt refers to something
recent or current, than to spying twenty years ago. Were I the British police, I would inquire
very closely into Orbis Intelligence.
There is no doubt that Skripal was feeding secrets to MI6 at the time that Christopher
Steele was an MI6 officer in Moscow, and at the the time that Pablo Miller, another member of
Orbis Intelligence, was also an MI6 officer in Russia and directly recruiting agents. It is
widely reported on the web and in US media
that it was Miller who first recruited Skripal. My own ex-MI6 sources tell me that is not quite
true as Skripal was "walk-in", but that Miller certainly was involved in running Skripal for a
while. Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely
alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant
to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover
than Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active
in the internet scrubbing.
It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp
the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump
paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate"
affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis
dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely
demolish, as
I did here . Steele's motive was, like Skriapin's in selling his secrets, cash pure and
simple. Steele is a charlatan who knocked up a series of allegations that are either wildly
improbable, or would need a high level source access he could not possibly get in today's
Russia, or both. He told the Democrats what they wish to hear and his audience – who had
and still have no motivation to look at it critically – paid him highly for it.
I do not know for certain that Pablo Miller helped knock together the Steele dossier on
Trump, but it seems very probable given he also served for MI6 in Russia and was working for
Orbis. And it seems to me even more probable that Sergei Skripal contributed to the Orbis
Intelligence dossier on Trump. Steele and Miller cannot go into Russia and run sources any
more, and never would have had access as good as their dossier claims, even in their MI6 days.
The dossier was knocked up for huge wodges of cash from whatever they could cobble together.
Who better to lend a little corroborative verisimilitude in these circumstances than their old
source Skripal?
Skripal was at hand in the UK, and allegedly even close to Miller in Salisbury. He could add
in the proper acronym for a Russian committee here or the name of a Russian official there, to
make it seem like Steele was providing hard intelligence. Indeed, Skripal's outdated knowledge
might explain some of the dossier's more glaring errors.
But the problem with double agents like Skripal, who give intelligence for money, is that
they can easily become triple agents and you never know when a better offer is going to come
along. When Steele produced his dodgy dossier, he had no idea it would ever become so prominent
and subject to so much scrutiny. Steele is fortunate in that the US Establishment is strongly
motivated not to scrutinise his work closely as their one aim is to "get" Trump. But with the
stakes very high, having a very loose cannon as one of the dossier's authors might be most
inconvenient both for Orbis and for the Clinton camp.
If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence.
To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely
skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad
as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to
assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own
international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian
reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria
and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's
international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia.
Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation,
and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to
Salisbury to attack Skriapin with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to
believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point.
I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. I write as someone who believes that agents of
the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried
out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on
Chechnya. I believe the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Georgia is illegal. On the
other hand, in Syria Russia has saved the Middle East from domination by a new wave of US and
Saudi sponsored extreme jihadists.
The naive view of the world as "goodies" and "baddies", with our own ruling class as the
good guys, is for the birds. I witnessed personally in Uzbekistan the willingness of the UK and
US security services to accept and validate intelligence they knew to be false in order to
pursue their policy objectives. We should be extremely sceptical of their current anti-Russian
narrative. There are many possible suspects in this attack.
"... "seem to have forgotten about that very quickly and, rather than being cautious, there's a drive to blame Russia immediately." ..."
"... "outright accusatory statements" made mid-way though the investigation are "part of the anti-Russia hype that continues in the West." ..."
"... "We need to see the evidence. And the people of both Russia and the United States, and the world, are savvy enough to see the evidence and be able to make their own judgement. We haven't seen that evidence," ..."
"... "Why would Russia leave a signature like that, it's similar to some of the hacking that has been going on leaving Cyrillic [script] in the hacking codes. If this all was orchestrated by the Russian government, why would they be leaving such a trail?" ..."
"... "defies logic and common sense." ..."
"... "what will happen will be sanctions, some diplomatic expulsions." ..."
"... One possible response floated by MPs was a boycott of the World Cup in Russia by the England national football team. While the topic was not raised personally by May, if it turns out to be the case, such a decision will go down in history as, arguably, the most unpopular one ever taken by an incumbent PM, "apart from Brexit delay," ..."
It's hard to believe that the investigation that is being conducted by the UK authorities is
impartial, what with the surrounding media frenzy and the vast record of highly politicized
intelligence coming from the authorities, Dr Tara McCormack, lecturer in International Politics
at the University of Leicester, told RT.
McCormack noted that the media and the lawmakers are reluctant to reflect on these mistakes.
They "seem to have forgotten about that very quickly and, rather than being cautious,
there's a drive to blame Russia immediately."
Former Pentagon official Michael Maloof echoed the point, saying that the "outright
accusatory statements" made mid-way though the investigation are "part of the anti-Russia hype
that continues in the West." Bringing up how the UK government sided with the US in the
false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he said it's hard to take any
such assertions at face value.
"We need to see the evidence. And the people of both Russia and the United States, and
the world, are savvy enough to see the evidence and be able to make their own judgement. We
haven't seen that evidence," Maloof said.
Timed to Russia's election
The timing of the attack, on the verge of Russia's presidential election and its
circumstances, notably the use of a Soviet nerve agent, begs the question: "Why would
Russia leave a signature like that, it's similar to some of the hacking that has been going on
leaving Cyrillic [script] in the hacking codes. If this all was orchestrated by the Russian
government, why would they be leaving such a trail?" Maloof asked, pointing out that it
"defies logic and common sense."
With MPs calling Russia names and touting a host of potential sanctions, NATO retaliation
and a ban on RT broadcasting, it's still up to the UK government to decide what measures to
take, Dr McCormack noted. Asserting that she doesn't believe May will back down from her
initial allegations against Russia, she theorized that "what will happen will be sanctions,
some diplomatic expulsions."
One possible response floated by MPs was a boycott of the World Cup in Russia by the England
national football team. While the topic was not raised personally by May, if it turns out to be
the case, such a decision will go down in history as, arguably, the most unpopular one ever
taken by an incumbent PM, "apart from Brexit delay," Jon Gaunt said.
Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have killed long ago? On the other
hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be keen to silence sources, now that
Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same time, implicate Russia?
Notable quotes:
"... as usual - the west under the leadership of the usa /uk - need no proof... assertions and innuendo is all that is needed! ..."
"... Interesting they allowed the possibility that the gas, if made in Russia, could have been stolen. Is that because they thought the sheeple might actually wonder about the anthrax released after 9/11, which came from a US facility, and which nobody ever accused the government of unleashing? ..."
"... In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." ..."
"... Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given Miller's Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them – in which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved. ..."
"... Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have killed long ago? On the other hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be keen to silence sources, now that Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same time, implicate Russia? ..."
"... Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to tell people to wash their clothes and other items? ..."
as usual - the west under the leadership of the usa /uk - need no proof... assertions
and innuendo is all that is needed!
i swear they are gearing up for something with russia, whether it be war in syria, thanks
that freak haleys words from earlier today, or this, or something... it is non stop..
What is this "known" Russian never agent? Who else manufactures it? Does UK (or could it as a
"special project")? Particularly, in the lab right down the street?
Interesting they allowed the possibility that the gas, if made in Russia, could have been
stolen. Is that because they thought the sheeple might actually wonder about the anthrax
released after 9/11, which came from a US facility, and which nobody ever accused the
government of unleashing?
EDIT: Apparently May is alleging the chemical involved is a novichok, which was supposedly
produced by the USSR from the 1970s to the 1990s. Assuming all this is true, I found the
following interesting excerpt from Wikipedia in terms of who may have access to the chemical
(aside from the Russian state and/or ((Russian)) mafia):
One of the key manufacturing sites was the Soviet State Scientific Research Institute for
Organic Chemistry and Technology (GosNIIOKhT) in Nukus, Uzbekistan. ... Since its
independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States to
dismantle and decontaminate the sites where the Novichok agents and other chemical weapons
were tested and developed.
Funny, didn't see anything in May's speech about that.
In reply to Fucking fascist UK with by Perimetr
Vote up!
In 1995, Sergey Skripal was recruited by an MI6 undercover agent, Pablo Miller, who at the
time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working at the British Embassy in Tallinn,
Estonia.
Pablo Miller was exposed in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians were arrested for
spying and fingered Miller as their recruiter. One of Miller's other recruits was Alexander
Litvinenko. [Note: Polonium was also used to murder Arafat – the source is said to have
been Israel's Dimona reactor.]
Miller and Skripal met frequently: Skripal (whose codename was "Forthwith") passed the
entire Russian military intelligence telephone handbook to Miller, containing details of more
than 300 of his colleagues in Russian intelligence. In 2006 Skripal was jailed.
After the spy swap in 2010, Skripal decided to resettle in Salisbury, where Pablo Miller
also lived. In 2015 Miller retired and received an OBE for services to Her Majesty's
Government. No doubt Miller was Skripal's minder and was probably the reason Skripal had gone
to Salisbury.
According to his LinkedIn entry (deleted a few days ago), Miller worked as a consultant
for Christopher Steele – Miller is the consultant whose name was withheld by the
Telegraph. Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence was hired by Fusion GPS in 2016 to research
Trump.
In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated
that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media
organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley
billionaires and George Soros."
Between 26 November, 2017 and 10 January, 2018 George Soros (who is a prolific tweeter)
was silent. Not a single tweet. Why, where was he?
Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given Miller's
Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them – in
which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved.
Join the dots.... cui bono? Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have
killed long ago? On the other hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be
keen to silence sources, now that Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same
time, implicate Russia?
Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more
potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to
tell people to wash their clothes and other items?
In reply to May: Umm, our investigations by Shitonya Serfs
"Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country, or the Russian
government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed
it to get into the hands of others," May told lawmakers in London on Monday.
Russia wasted little time in dismissing May's assessment. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria
Zakharova called her statement a " circus act ." The onus is on the
U.K. to act decisively this time given criticism it responded weakly to the 2006 murder of
Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko.
"... Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson on Monday called the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain "an egregious act" and added, "It appears that it clearly came from Russia." ..."
"... The statement, made in an interview with reporters at the end of a five-nation tour of Africa, was the clearest statement yet from the Trump administration, after several days of equivocation in which American officials declined to explicitly blame Russia for the March 4 attack. ..."
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson on Monday called the
poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain "an egregious act" and added, "It appears that it
clearly came from Russia."
The statement, made in an interview with reporters at the end of a five-nation tour of
Africa, was the clearest statement yet from the Trump administration, after several days of
equivocation in which American officials declined to explicitly blame Russia for the March 4
attack.
"I've become extremely concerned about Russia," Mr. Tillerson said in the interview. "We
spent most of last year investing a lot into attempts to work together, to solve problems, to
address differences. And quite frankly, after a year, we didn't get very far. Instead what
we've seen is a pivot on their part to be more aggressive."
He added: "And this is very, very concerning to me and others, that there seems to be a
certain unleashing of activity that we don't fully understand what the objective behind that
is. And if in fact this attack in the U.K. is the work of the Russian government, this is a
pretty serious action."
"... The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre. Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around 16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. ..."
"... Financial Times, ..."
"... Daily Mirror's ..."
"... If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation needs to be made as to motive. Skripal's daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular trips back and forth. ..."
"... At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK, becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence think-tank. ..."
"... RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism's anti-Russian policy. Even the Guardian's ..."
"... Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorizing the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents. ..."
"... The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times ..."
"... This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama has cited a London Daily Telegraph article stating that Sergei Skripal was close to a security consultant (fingered in MoA comments as Pablo Miller) who has worked for Christopher Steele. This security consultant apparently recruited Skripal in Estonia in 1995 and also lives in Salisbury (which as some have noted is some 13 km from Porton Down, site of a UK Ministry of Defence military research lab). ..."
"... If MoA's speculations have any substance, I should think Boris Berezovsky's suicide in 2013 merits closer attention. ..."
"... The UK and M16 is probably behind this murder as a step in helping the USA pile up fake evidence about alleged Russian crimes to justify the USA in its plan to go to war against Russia. ..."
"... These characters and entities (CIA or MI-6), are capable of unthinkable evil, such us disposing of those people just to be able to blame Russia-Putin once more. No holds barred. ..."
"... Cui Bono indeed. There is absolutely no reason the "Putin regime" as you insist on calling the Russian government, or Putin personally would gratuitously kill some completely irrelevant long-retired and already pardoned double agent who had long ago given British Intelligence every scrap of information he knew while knowing the only possible outcome would be a huge propaganda campaign against Russia and Putin personally just two weeks before the Presidential election. ..."
"... On the other hand, for MI6, the CIA, and the creatures behind them, it makes perfect sense to have their now useless former spy perform one last unwitting "service" for the Western Oligarchy by providing yet another pretext for ramping up their campaign of anti-Russian hysteria. As a fringe benefit, they don't have to pay his pension anymore. ..."
Nobody of us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they
tried to kill.
But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many
years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election.
DK Anti-Russia campaign follows alleged poisoning of former UK/Russian double
agent and daughter
The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign
centered on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former
British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury on Sunday.
Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.
On Tuesday, the other person hospitalized was identified as Skripal's 33-year-old daughter,
Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.
Skripal is a former colonel in Russia's GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent
four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the
UK's foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as
part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the
UK where he has lived for the past seven years.
The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping
centre. Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at
around 16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was
announced Wednesday that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the
incident. The Skripals visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi's, which was cordoned off, as well as
a local pub, The Bishop's Mill.
By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and
media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at
Russia's Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media
reports saying the government's secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to
identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London's Metropolitan Police
counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation.
In parliament, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke about the "disturbing incident in
Salisbury" and stated, "Although I am not now pointing fingers, because we cannot point
fingers, I say to governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil
will go either unsanctioned or unpunished," He then referred to Russia as a "malign and
destructive force" and warned that if Moscow were found to be involved, the government would
"take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the lives of the people in this country,
our values and our freedoms."
In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had "echoes of the death of
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" -- the former officer in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB,
the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in
Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the
killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016 -- other
than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.
Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia
this summer.
Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian
headlines . The Sun blared, "Red Spy in UK Poison Terror," with an accompanying story
referring to "fear over a Kremlin backed hit " The Daily Mirror's headline was "
'Assassins' on British street".
In an article in the Spectator , columnist Ed West posed the question, "Will
Britain stand up to Russia?"
By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing the story by saying, "so
far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned and if they were, by
whom," the BBC's flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that Russia was
responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by Russia
intelligence operatives.
The media have reported the deaths of Skripal's wife, his son and his older brother as
mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.
The following day the DailyTelegraph asserted that "Putin swore death on
poisoned Russian spy." The Times went with "MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former
spy."
On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during
periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark
Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a "nerve agent,"
with it being classified as a case of "attempted murder."
No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest
that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his
identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway
social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish
food store.
If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some
explanation needs to be made as to motive. Skripal's daughter lived and worked in Russia and
made regular trips back and forth.
At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much
more likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent
anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK,
becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence
think-tank.
RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism's anti-Russian policy. Even
the Guardian's main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was
forced to acknowledge that Sutyagin "gave lectures on Vladimir Putin's darkening state, and
kept a high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla
[his wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire. "
Asking the question who would benefit from the deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there
would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin government would authorize such an act.
Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of the 2018 presidential election, which
takes place on March 18. He is expected to be re-elected.
Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any
pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorizing the murder
of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.
The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context
of the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted
its front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures,
including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in
military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.
This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of
the General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively
prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals.
Moon of Alabama has cited a London Daily Telegraph article stating that Sergei Skripal was
close to a security consultant (fingered in MoA comments as Pablo Miller) who has worked for
Christopher Steele. This security consultant apparently recruited Skripal in Estonia in 1995
and also lives in Salisbury (which as some have noted is some 13 km from Porton Down, site of
a UK Ministry of Defence military research lab).
When will people realize, here in America, that everything Russia is meant to manufacture
consent for a world war against Russia? Why are our people so stupid?
The UK and M16 is probably behind this murder as a step in helping the USA pile up fake
evidence about alleged Russian crimes to justify the USA in its plan to go to war against
Russia.
Is it possible that instead of Putin or the Russian government being responsible for
Skripal death more shadowy figures from his past decided to seek revenge from some past
action? After all these people move in murky unpleasant circles and the past can catch up
with one eventually.
These characters and entities (CIA or MI-6), are capable of unthinkable evil, such us
disposing of those people just to be able to blame Russia-Putin once more.
No holds barred.
Makes me laugh (kind of bitterly though) how the media's labelled the recent bout of cold
weather insistently and repeatedly as "the beast from the East" blaming Russia for it! All of
a piece with planting anti Russian seeds in the pleb's mind.
Cui Bono indeed. There is absolutely no reason the "Putin regime" as you insist on calling
the Russian government, or Putin personally would gratuitously kill some completely
irrelevant long-retired and already pardoned double agent who had long ago given British
Intelligence every scrap of information he knew while knowing the only possible outcome would
be a huge propaganda campaign against Russia and Putin personally just two weeks before the
Presidential election.
On the other hand, for MI6, the CIA, and the creatures behind them, it makes perfect
sense to have their now useless former spy perform one last unwitting "service" for the
Western Oligarchy by providing yet another pretext for ramping up their campaign of
anti-Russian hysteria. As a fringe benefit, they don't have to pay his pension
anymore.
Incidentally, according to Canadian TV "news", his daughter lives in Moscow and was
just visiting him in Britain. So apparently the FSB had no particular interest in killing her
as they could easily have arranged a low profile "car accident" or something similar in
Moscow at any convenient time. Whenever some high profile murder is promptly attributed to
"Putin", "the Putin Regime" or "the Russians" and a huge obviously pre-arranged propaganda
campaign swings into full throated shrieking, usually shortly before some important
international event being held in Russia like the World Cup Soccer matches or the
Presidential Election, always ask: Cui Bono.
Putin has levels of approval ratings, unknown to the leaders of any country in the world.
The only ones worrying about his reelection, are the despicable enemies of Russia, parroting
US media anti Putin campaign.
By the way, how come that the indispensable country, home to 327 million people, can not even
field a team in the Football World Cup in Russia this summer.
Even little Uruguay with a population of 3 million, is going to be there. Everybody who is
somebody in the civilized world, is going to be in Russia for the cup, but the US.
In the US, where everything is named for the opposite of what it actually is, the name
"Football" is reserved for a game where you carry an object which is not shaped like a ball
with your hands instead of kicking a round, ball shaped object with your foot.
Kind of like the "Forest Protection Act" removes logging protecting from National
Forests and the "Clean Air Act" removes anti-pollution regulations from big polluters like
coal fired power stations.
Here in Canada the "Seal Protection Act" makes it illegal to protect seals, among other
"named the opposite of what they actually do" laws.
George Orwell nailed it in "1984". "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is
Strength".
"... As far as one can tell from what the British have revealed about this attempted killing is that the agent is an organophosphate triester acety choline (ach) inhibitor. ..."
"... This is a class of chemicals that include hundreds if not thousands of different compounds. As a matter of fact most of these compounds can be synthesized in very simple labs if there is an individual that has the knowledge. It would be possible to put together such a lab in a single family house with a natural gas, electric hook ups and a good kitchen sink along with a few thousand dollars to purchase the right flasks, pumps and temperature controllers. ..."
"... The suggestion by May that Russia is one of the only countries in the world capable of making this stuff is totally laughable. In the last 80 years the organophosphate neurotoxins have been used by and produced by dozens of countries as insecticides. ..."
"... At this point there close to zero evidence that the agent used to intoxicate the Skripils was something uniquely available to Russia. ..."
"... When in trouble at home, create trouble abroad. ..."
What is totally insane about all of these allegations against Russia is that so far they have
not identified the nerve agent that was used against Skrpil and his daughter. As far as one
can tell from what the British have revealed about this attempted killing is that the agent
is an organophosphate triester acety choline (ach) inhibitor.
This is a class of chemicals
that include hundreds if not thousands of different compounds. As a matter of fact most of
these compounds can be synthesized in very simple labs if there is an individual that has the
knowledge. It would be possible to put together such a lab in a single family house with a
natural gas, electric hook ups and a good kitchen sink along with a few thousand dollars to
purchase the right flasks, pumps and temperature controllers.
The suggestion by May that Russia is one of the only countries in the world capable of
making this stuff is totally laughable. In the last 80 years the organophosphate neurotoxins
have been used by and produced by dozens of countries as insecticides. These chemicals were
discovered by German chemists in the 1920s.
The difference between an insecticide and a
chemical warfare agent is no more than a simple side chain about the phosphate core.
At this point there close to zero evidence that the agent used to intoxicate the Skripils
was something uniquely available to Russia.
Well, I place my completely subjective assessment on Mossad wot dun it.
Motive?
Russia is in 'its backyard' and screwing up its plans (destroying
IS/ISIL/ISIS/DAESH/Whatever), or at least limiting its options.
Means?
Lots of Israeli Russians to pick from for the job, probably previously unactivated ones
for this special one off. As 'b' has pointed out already, this agent is not 'magic' or
unknown to the West.
Opportunity?
Upcoming 2018 Football World Cup in Russia, Presidential elections. Timed for maximum
impact to give allies (CIA probably and by extension MI6/whatever) a sliver of opportunity to
try and push for collective action to limit or control Russia in the ME and elsewhere.
It all rather smacks of desperation though, which is why I think of Nut&Yahoo who was
yet again 'interviewed' last week by the cops. When in trouble at home, create trouble
abroad. It's also a pretty dumb move (considering the close relations between Russia &
Israel) which I hope will back fire and probably won't work out as planned (as everything
else planned by the West hasn't). If Russia fingers Nut&Yahoo for this, then they will
call the shots, i.e. he'll have to fall on his sword and Russian troops will retake the
Golan. Actually I expect the latter to happen regardless. No one else can do it without being
bombed.
Anyways, that's my massive speculation for what it is worth. Not a lot!
If the UK has any doubt, I'm sure there are '17 intelligence agencies' in the US who will
back them up all the way! And they're so good, they don't even need to see any evidence to
know for sure!
May's using the trusted-old projection propaganda ploy for her constituents. I await the CCTV
footage showing the pair being gassed on that public park bench only 8 miles away from a very
sensitive military installation. Seems the only people sniffing the bait are from 5-Eyes,
English-speaking nations, as proven by how the media's playing along. The UK's drowning as it
continues its slide into irrelevancy after its brief affair as #1 planetary hegemon.
Meanwhile, Mercouris and
Escobar
provide the underlying reasons why UK/US are so frantic.
Remember when that building fire killed scores of people, they called for calm and patience
until the full investigation is done, not to jump to any conclusions and all that jazz, song
& dance. Where is now the famous British attitude "Keep calm and carry on"?
The UK poisoned spy is just part of an intensive US/UK/France propaganda effort. US and
France on Syria and UK on Russia. Haley in the UN saying US will act on its own unless UNSC
demand imediate no conditions 30 day ceasefire in Ghouta, Macron fiddling with his CW red
line and now May/UK ramping up the propaganda on Russia.
Ghouta must have been very important to these pricks.
Wonderful thing the Internet. I have just found this 1993 document that contains a long
interview with one of the 'inventors' of Novochuk. It is amazing stuff, as is the rest of the
document.
It is part of the 'what can we do to turn Soviet tanks into plowshares' plan back then
with interviews with key players. Found in a JPRS report available through DTIC.
I can't cut and past as its a huge pdf that also takes a bit of time to load. Check out
pages 18/19/20.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury.
Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough
of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the
premises.
Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC...
Notable quotes:
"... Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank God for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US Empire. ..."
"... But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland. ..."
"... The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapons and Old Bush promised Nato wouldn't expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / military /congressional industrial complex. ..."
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of
London when it surrendered its hard drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction
in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in
decline before they nabbed Glenn Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive
credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank God for
OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole
world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US
Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that
-- for the first time ever -- the Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority
over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North
and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is That Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or
frightened of a particular thing -- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of
nuclear war. Trotsky said America was the strongest nation but also the most terrified' and
nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has
shifted to Russia and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion
from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty
little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as
it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland.
The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire"
military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class
of nuclear weapons and Old Bush promised Nato wouldn't expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little
bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / military
/congressional industrial complex.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't
know what the stuff is: nevertheless, we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a
state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper and TV channel has
by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and
what they do to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat
suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The Army have now been deployed: on hand after
completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing their
specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it
by now. In another piece of pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of
Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more buried underground, you
can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken
ill (maybe she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of
this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending
officer, Nick Bailey, is only just out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so
lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet the eye-witness calling
himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and
nurse that attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite
being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died? Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed
this glaring inconsistency. Enter, stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess
who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that PC Bailey was
contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home -- not attend them in
Salisbury. This allowed the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated
present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a week, because this stuff is
so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his
contributions to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on
Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there
maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is pure
theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from C4News (mute
the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks,
but behind them firemen in normal uniform and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front,
in civvies with no protective gear at all .
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
"... As for murray's theory, i think you're both right. while i doubt the primary reason was to gin up more russophobia (they usually just make stuff up out of thin air and it usually works) it is a pleasant side effect for the brit officials who have recently been groveling for more war profiteering under the pretense of "russia on our doorstep". ..."
"... They seem to have the same mentality rahm emanuel had when he said (regarding the 2008 collapse that decimated giant swathes of the US economy) "never let a good crisis go to waste". ..."
"... The whole affair gets curiouser and curiouser. Now there's a report that the Skripals were poisoned at HOME. And then succumbed later, elsewhere? And what about the other 21 people reportedly affected and treated? Huh?? ..."
"... I believe Craig Murray. Anyone who remembers the 9/11 Anthrax scare that threatened US decision makers? ..."
"... The BBC has reported that a "source familiar with the investigation" said the nerve agent was "likely to be rarer than sarin or VX". This suggests that the ground is being prepared for announcing a result that will implicate Russia. ..."
"... Kaszeta's comments are relevant because he works closely with Bellingcat and it appears from his output that since 2013 he has been used to channel information originating from western intelligence services about alleged chemical attacks, based on his status as an independent expert with his company Strongpoint Security. The accounts filed for this company show that its turnover was not enough to provide Kaszeta with a living, raising obvious questions about who or what was paying him. ..."
"... There we go Britain to raise Sergei Skripal poisoning case with Nato allies ..."
"... Similar case in California, Were they addicts? http://abc7.com/2-dead-in-possible-fentanyl-exposure-in-fontana-home/3197127/ ..."
as mentioned above, the UK is saturated with CCTV cameras. in all the MSM screeching i have yet to hear about any footage being
examined.
As for murray's theory, i think you're both right. while i doubt the primary reason was to gin up more russophobia (they
usually just make stuff up out of thin air and it usually works) it is a pleasant side effect for the brit officials who have
recently been groveling for more war profiteering under the pretense of "russia on our doorstep".
They seem to have the same mentality rahm emanuel had when he said (regarding the 2008 collapse that decimated giant swathes
of the US economy) "never let a good crisis go to waste". maybe an even better analogy would be churchill praying for a german
attack to justify his bloodlust as seen in dresden and other firebombing targets.
the fact that putin has elections and the media came out with the story that this move would ensure after the elections that other
spies won't have any doubts.....are prepared statements. if your spies were in syria from rus and from us. i think most people
know who would have the heavier conscience. and in fact it is reminding their own what they are worth to them .... genius. actually.
before cctv were widespread among civil infrastructure, the opponents against the idea realized that people can just erase
the time stamp and put on different ones and have actors act it out and placed onto television as proof. but we see they usually
go for the afp reported from cnn report from 50 agencies unnamed unsourced deparment heads, circular fun.
i am not so much interested in the videos from nearby stores and streets, as if one really were to investigate, looking through
weeks of tapes is not difficult. i am more interested in Britain next move.
i think it would be easier to britain to just mute this guy permanently if he were to wake up with ideas that it wasn't putin
its a big problem for all the milking they are doing on it.
a. he makes it out of the hospital and comes out and becomes anti putin fanatic and makes it believable.
b. he makes it out of the hospital and goes back to normal life.
c. he makes it out of the hospital and is immediately gunned/poisoned by "russians".
d. he doesn't make it out of the hospital and goes back to normal life anyways.
e. he doesn't make it out of the hospital......but his daughter does.
f. he doesn't make it out of the hospital and is in coma indefinitely.
g. he is dropped from the news altogether due to security censorship.
The whole affair gets curiouser and curiouser. Now there's a report that the Skripals were poisoned at HOME. And then succumbed
later, elsewhere? And what about the other 21 people reportedly affected and treated? Huh??
The police sgt. that became ill wasn't at the initial scene, he later searched the home of the two victims. So someone is making
the assumption that they may have been poisoned at their home since that is where the police officer who later became ill was
assigned.
There is a possible scenario that he was in possession of a nerve agent, and accidentally poisoned himself and his daughter
Porton Down is only 8 miles down the road
I believe Craig Murray.
...
Posted by: somebody | Mar 10, 2018 5:45:04 AM | 63
Craig Murray smelt a rat and made his suspicions clear, publicly. Whether Murray's speculation is better or worse than anyone
else's is unresolved and could remain that way, if History is any guide.
We seem no closer to discovering the ID of the instigators of the sordid and spectacularly public murder of Kim Jong-nam.
The BBC has reported that a "source familiar with the investigation" said the nerve agent was "likely to be rarer than sarin
or VX". This suggests that the ground is being prepared for announcing a result that will implicate Russia.
Kaszeta on bellingcat.com
brings up the story of "novichoks" a class of organophosphate compounds allegedly developed as military nerve agents in the USSR.
Russian chemists published papers in the open literature on these compounds from the 1960s to the 1980s. The story that they were
developed for military use and given the name "novichok" comes from a defector in the 1990s, Vil Mirzayanov. An
authoritative review
by Robin Black notes that there is no independent evidence supporting Mirzayanov's claims about the properties of these compounds.
Kaszeta's comments are relevant because he works closely with Bellingcat and it appears from his output that since 2013
he has been used to channel information originating from western intelligence services about alleged chemical attacks, based on
his status as an independent expert with his company Strongpoint Security. The accounts filed for this company show that its turnover
was not enough to provide Kaszeta with a living, raising obvious questions about who or what was paying him.
65, Hw... Murray has a lot more insider information than he lets on, often couching it as speculation, probably partly to protect
sources. He can be admirably or foolishly blunt at times ("z' is b'sh!")but with delicate issues, he often alludes at things insteda
of saying outright. He has retained deep connections with many (at least partially like-minded) people at the FCO, the diplomatic
corps and (indeed) MS5 and 6.
"Novichok" was just used in the plot of the latest Strike Back TV series, from the Wikipedia article-"She discovers that Zaryn
is in fact Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his colleagues with Novichok, a nerve agent they invented"
65, Hw... Murray has a lot more insider information than he lets on.
...
Posted by: Petra | Mar 10, 2018 10:45:44 AM | 67
His Former British Ambassador status bolsters his street cred. OTOH one imagines that he is acutely aware of the line dividing
whistle-blowing from treason.
On the other, other hand, b is a quite diligent and competent sleuth too, and has more than a passing interest in military/defense
intrigue and intel.
Nerve agents including Sarin and VX are manufactured by the British Government in Porton
Down, just 8 miles from where Sergei Skripal was attacked. The official British
government story is that these nerve agents are only manufactured "To help develop
effective medical countermeasures and to test systems".
The UK media universally accepted that the production of polonium by Russia was conclusive
evidence that Vladimir Putin was personally responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.
In the case of Skripal, po-faced articles like
this hilarious one in the Guardian speculate about where the nerve agent could possibly
have come from – while totally failing to mention the fact that incident took place
only eight miles from the largest stock of nerve agent in western Europe.
The investigation comprises multiple strands. Among them is whether there is any more of
the nerve agent in the UK, and where it came from.
Chemical weapons experts said it was almost impossible to make nerve agents without
training. "This needs expertise and a special place to make it or you will kill yourself.
It's only a small amount, but you don't make this in your kitchen," one said, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer at the UK's chemical, biological and
nuclear regiment, said: "This is pretty significant. Nerve agents such as sarin and VX need
to be made in a laboratory. It is not an insufficient task. Not even the so-called Islamic
State could do it."
Falling over themselves in the rush to ramp up the Russophobia, the Guardian quotes
"One former senior Foreign Office adviser suggested the Kremlin was taking advantage of
the UK's lack of allies in the US and EU. He said the British government was in a "weaker
position" than in 2006 when two Kremlin assassins poisoned the former FSB officer Alexander
Litvinenko with a radioactive cup of tea.
The adviser said the use of nerve agent suggested a state operation "
It certainly does. But the elephant in the room is – which state?
The British government is talking war with Russia over a mysterious incident that is claimed
to have taken place on Sunday March 4, just a few kilometres from the secrecy shrouded British
biological and chemical warfare research and development facility at Porton Down in Wiltshire.
I say claimed since we have very little information confirming what exactly took place outside
of government statements and we have seen no photographs of the alleged victims in their
hospital beds to convince us that the alleged victims did fall ill and are being treated.
However, let us assume that the incident as described did take place.
The mystery consists in the fact that the victims, former Russian colonel of military
intelligence, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, were not under any known threat from Russia.
Skripal was charged and convicted in Russia in 2006 of being an asset of the British Secret
Intelligence Service, MI6, and handing over secret information to the British. He was jailed,
but in a spy swap in 2010 was pardoned and allowed to leave Russia for Vienna, then Britain,
where he has been living ever since. Why he was pardoned is difficult to determine, unless it
was necessary legally to effect the swap with the British. In any even the Russians had washed
their hands of him but it seems the British had other uses for him, as their expendable man for
a provocation against Russia.
The facts as the British government states them are that Skripal and his daughter, visiting
from Russia, met for lunch in Salisbury, the town outside of which Porton Down is located. The
purpose of the daughter's visit is not known. According to ever changing media accounts
witnesses in a restaurant reported that Skripal appeared to be agitated and angry and left in
that state with his daughter following. Agitated and angry about what we do not know.
Half an hour later it is said that the two of them were found slumped over on a public
bench. Some early media accounts state that it was thought they had taken too much fentanyl and
were vomiting and that their illness may have been self-induced. But very quickly the British
government claimed that they had been poisoned by some chemical or nerve agent and immediately
cast the blame on Russia though the investigation had just begun. The incident was immediately
taken out of the hands of the local police and handed over to the Counter-Terrorism Police,
formerly known as Special Branch, though the government refused to call it a terrorist
incident. A meeting of the British government high-level emergency committee, Cobra, was
called. Why this was done for what appears to be an assault or attempted murder or a
self-induced accident is a good question. But the answer lies in the immediate propaganda
campaign mounted in the British press against Russia.
On Thursday the 8th of March the British government claimed that they had identified a
"nerve agent" as the substance used. Yet the BBC quotes on the same day a woman physician who
attended at the scene saying that she found Mrs. Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench
vomiting and fitting. She had lost control of her bodily functions. The physician, who asked
not to be named, told the BBC she moved the daughter into the recovery position and opened her
airways as others tended to her father. The doctor stated that the she treated her for almost
30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on her face or body and that though
she had been worried she would be affected by a nerve agent so far she "feels fine."
Yet, the British media published on Thursday a photograph of a police officer who they say
attended the scene and who they claim was made ill and placed in intensive care but is now
stable and recovering. The two stories do not add up, as it would seem the doctor was in closer
physical contact with the two victims than the police officer yet the doctor has suffered no
symptoms at all.
The Guardian quoted Andrei Lugovoi, another former Russian agent, accused of Litvinenko's
murder by the British as stating that Skripal had been pardoned in Russia so no one from there
is after him. " "I don't rule out that this is another provocation by British. Whatever happens
on British territory, they start yelling: 'He was killed, he was hung, he was poisoned!' and
that Russia is to blame
for everything. This is to their advantage." Igor Sutyagin, yet another Russian traitor flown
to Russia in 2010 in an exchange of spies-also said, "I don't think that Mr. Skripal would be
targeted, because he was pardoned."
To add to the mystery the British government refuses to name the alleged nerve agent. To
create more drama the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, stated that it was not Sarin or VX
but something "very rare." I think we can expect that they will choose the right dramatic
moment to name something and state that only Russian labs can make it. That is their modus
operandi. They certainly do not want to state that VX was involved since VX was developed in
1952 at Porton Down near the sight of the incident; for that would lead to necessary
investigations into security at that facility and whether personnel there were involved.
However, despite the fact that Porton Down is in the business of manufacturing chemical warfare
agents including nerve agents and that logic would dictate that the Porton Down authorities
would be barred from being investigators into a case in which they could be involved the
British government immediately assigned Porton Down to identify the substance that might have
been used.
That the Russians may be correct that this incident is another NATO arranged provocation
must be seriously considered. Despite the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia had
anything to do with this incident, the British government was quick to label Russia as the
villain of the piece and the mass media dutifully acted in lock step and put out the word.
Boris Johnson called Russia a "malign and disruptive force' and made threats about pulling the
UK out of the World Cup to be held in Russia this year. The attempts by the NATO alliance to
throw Russia out of the Olympics on trumped up doping charges were largely successful and now
we see another attempt to disrupt a sports event that is important to world football fans and
to Russia. Johnson added that Britain would act "robustly' of Moscow is found to be
involved.
The Russian embassy in London stated the allegations of Russian involvement are untrue and
that the "script of yet another anti-Russian campaign has already been written." It seems so
and the script has some pages to run yet. One has to wonder what the role of the British
intelligence services is in this for the BBC also reports that Skripal still kept the company
of British intelligence agents. So one has to ask, for what reason? What was his continuing
role as an asset of MI6? What was their role on that day?
But that line of inquiry will not be followed. All the British media are linking this
incident to the case of Alexander Litvinenko, another Russian who was supposedly poisoned with
radioactive tea. Evidence that cronies of his were involved were ignored in favour the line
that Russia was behind it though no evidence has ever been put forward to support that claim.
They are also making the claim that this "very rare" substance must be from a state military
stockpile, so the statements to come from the British government can be predicted.
This incident has echoes of the case of Georgi Markov, the Bulgarian dissident killed in
London in 1978 by a ricin pellet injected into his leg by means of an umbrella it was said,
though it was no doubt done with an air pistol. That murder was quickly blamed on the KGB and
Bulgarian government agents but there is evidence that in fact the murder was arranged by MI6
as was the murder of media magnate Robert Maxwell in 1991, who had documents relating to the
Markov murder in his possession, according sources such as Richard Cottrell in his book Gladio
and accounts by former British intelligence agent Gordon Logan.
The Skripal incident also brings to mind the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003 whose
mysterious death in woods near his home, was officially attributed to "suicide." He is thought
by many to have been assassinated by the British secret services and CIA to keep him from
revealing secrets about the war in Iraq. He worked at Porton Down as head of microbiology.
He in turn is connected to other scientists at Porton Down who have died under questionable
circumstances, for instance, Dr. Richard Holmes, whose body was found in the same woods as Dr.
Kelly, in 2012, two days after going for a walk, and one month after resigning from Porton
Down, and to Vladimir Pasechnik's death in November 2001, another Russian defector, who
allegedly died of a stroke. His death was not announced until a month later and by British
intelligence. Dr. Kelly had been involved in his debriefing when he left Russia.
Sir Edward Leigh, a member of the Parliamentary Defence Committee, in the British Parliament
stated, "the circumstantial evidence against Russia is very strong. Who else would have the
motive and the means?" The answer to that of course is that the British government has the
motive and the means. What would Russia benefit from harming a has-been like Skripal and
causing all this fuss? None. What benefit does Britain have and NATO? The answer again is
provided by Sir Richard who went on to state "The only way to preserve peace is through
strength," carefully echoing Trump's foreign policy. He continued, "and if Russia is behind
this, this is a brazen act of war, of humiliating our country and defence is the first duty and
spending 2% of the budget on defence is not enough." There is the motive right there. To
justify an increase on defence spending and to hit Russia yet again with propaganda warfare to
justify NATO's continuing aggression against Russia.
Russia has volunteered to cooperate in the "investigation" but to what end? The script is
already written, the drama will unfold, the consequences will flow and they will lead not to
peace and cooperation but to more hostility and war.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for
a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel " Beneath the
Clouds . He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for
the online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook."
"... Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack. ..."
"... Steele was an MI6 undercover agent in Moscow around the time when Skripal was recruited and handed over Russian secrets to the MI6. He also ran the MI6 Russia desk so anything about Skripal will have passed through him. It is very likely that they personally knew each other. Pablo Miller, who worked for Steele's private company, lived in the same town as Skripal and they seems to have been friends since Miller had recruited him. Miller or someone else attempted to cover up the connection to Steele by editing his LinkedIn entry. ..."
"... Unfortunately it is likely that the British government, and its U.S. cousin, will come up with some "blame Russia" story for the gullible people and leave it at that. That story will involve some "brazen and reckless" Russian plot and an "outrageous" attempt by Putin himself to publicly kill a friend of Britain with some with highly dangerous weapon of mass destruction. This will then be used to throw up new tensions, to put more sanctions on Russia and to sell more weapons. ..."
"... Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become clearer". ..."
"... One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink. ..."
It was not Russian vengeance for Skripal's earlier spying. He had been in Russian jails for four years and lived openly in Salisbury
for eight. There was plenty of time to off him. Russia certainly does not need any more anti-Russian propaganda in "western" media.
If a Russian service would want to kill someone it would do so without making such noise.
The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit:
Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg - 10:21 AM
- 8 Mar 2018 Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually
challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack.
Ambassador Murray also points
out that Salisbury, where the incident took place, is just 8 miles away from Porton Down, a chemical weapon test site run by
the British government. As the BBC noted in a report about
the place:
... chemical agents such as VX and mustard gas are still manufactured on site ...
I believe that Craig Murray is wrong. Russophobia can be stoked without attempting to publicly kill a retired spy and his daughter.
More likely motives can be found in the tight connection to another important affair. The British Telegraph
reports today :
A security consultant who has worked for the company that compiled the controversial dossier on Donald Trump was close to the
Russian double agent poisoned last weekend, it has been claimed.
The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify, lived close to Col Skripal and is understood to have known him
for some time.
...
The Telegraph understands that Col Skripal moved to Salisbury in 2010 in a spy swap and became close to a security consultant
employed by Christopher Steele , who compiled the Trump dossier.
The British security consultant, according to a LinkedIn social network account that was removed from the internet in the past
few days , is also based in Salisbury.
On the same LinkedIn account, the man listed consultancy work with Orbis Business Intelligence, according to reports.
Meduzanamed the man
the Telegraph declines to identify as:
Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn. Russia's Federal
Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.
Orbis is Christopher Steele's company which was paid by the Clinton campaign to make up or find 'dirt' about Trump. Sergei Skripal
was an agent
Steele
himself was likely involved with :
Steele had spent more than twenty years in M.I.6, most of it focussing on Russia. For three years, in the nineties , he spied
in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Between 2006 and 2009, he ran the service's Russia desk, at its headquarters, in London. He
was fluent in Russian, and widely considered to be an expert on the country.
Steele was an MI6 undercover agent in Moscow around the time when Skripal was recruited and handed over Russian secrets to
the MI6. He also ran the MI6 Russia desk so anything about Skripal will have passed through him. It is very likely that they personally
knew each other. Pablo Miller, who worked for Steele's private company, lived in the same town as Skripal and they seems to have
been friends since Miller had recruited him. Miller or someone else attempted to cover up the connection to Steele by editing his
LinkedIn entry.
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me, then there are a number of people and
organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in
creating and running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very dirty laundry might one
day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
Update: Steele's company issued a
weak denial of Skripal's involvement in the dossier:
Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier of
compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether
Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
The most curious point in the affair though is the visit of the daughter. She had just come from Moscow to visit her lonely father
when both were poisoned in a rather sensational way. There must be some reason why she was involved in this.
Did she have a bad message for him?
Did they both decide that suicide was the only way out?
Was locally bought Fentanyl involved as the local press had reported?
or
Was the lonely old man Sergej Skripal preparing to go back to his homeland Russia?
Did he offer a some kind of "gift" as apology to the Russian government that his trusted daughter would take to Moscow?
Did someone find out and stop the transfer?
The above questions are all highly speculative. But the connection between Steele and Skripal is way too deep to be irrelevant
here. It certainly deserves more digging.
Unfortunately it is likely that the British government, and its U.S. cousin, will come up with some "blame Russia" story for
the gullible people and leave it at that. That story will involve some "brazen and reckless" Russian plot and an "outrageous" attempt
by Putin himself to publicly kill a friend of Britain with some with highly dangerous weapon of mass destruction. This will then
be used to throw up new tensions, to put more sanctions on Russia and to sell more weapons.
That official story though is unlikely to be the true one.
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become
clearer".
Yeah, right. Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+
casualties among the middle eastern population. That kind of outrageous crime , correct?
One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how
low what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.
The key question is "Why now", after so many years ? This guy was exchanged by Russians. It he was such a threat to Russia they would keep him in jail. this is an interesting
question. And it looks like in current circumstances cuo bono test firmly points to British as it can poison World cup in Russia.
Intelligence services recently extended the activities of sabotage of sport events and teams of adversaries so there is nothing new
to it. In a way this somewhat similar line of attack to previous attempts to undermine international sporting events in Russia. British
Foreign Office quick reaction suggests exactly that.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia spent millions it really couldn't afford on the World Cup the worlds eyes are on Russia. Putin needs this kind of attention on him his leadership, election and his money like a hole in the head. Gov will up defence spending who wins..Putin or IMC. ..."
"... You clearly identify Russian motive and willingness to kill an ex-spy along with others who are, or may prove too troublesome. Fair enough. Just be sure that western intel agencies would have no qualms doing the same ..."
Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armamaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually
challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack.
Russia spent millions it really couldn't afford on the World Cup the worlds eyes are on Russia. Putin needs this kind of attention
on him his leadership, election and his money like a hole in the head. Gov will up defence spending who wins..Putin or IMC.
You clearly identify Russian motive and willingness to kill an ex-spy along with others who are, or may prove too troublesome.
Fair enough. Just be sure that western intel agencies would have no qualms doing the same
Introduction of new sanctions and confiscating some Russian property were probably the idea behind this, most probably,
false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... In a late-breaking report, the Sun confirmed that May is preparing to name Russia as the perpetrator of the attack on Sergei Skripal, a spy who was turned over to the UK in 2010 as part of a swap with Russia, after receiving confirmation from her intelligence chiefs. ..."
"... Of course, by blaming Russia for the attack, May be inadvertently doing Putin a favor. With Russian elections set for next weekend, blaming Russia after such a short investigation could bolster Putin's claims that Western powers are actively conspiring against him. Some have speculated that Russia could've planned the attack for exactly this purpose, while others have pointed out that it bears some hallmarks of a false flag attack intended to frame Russia. ..."
"... Former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton said yesterday: "The more Putin can point to Western hostility and aggression, the more he rallies the Russian people around him". ..."
"... So, once again, a Western power is blaming Russia for an attack, citing an obscure piece of Russian law which declares that foreign assassinations must be approved by the Russian president. ..."
"... MI6 false flag attack? How much do you want to bet? ..."
"... Note that the UK military has been trying to hype the Russian threat for the last several weeks to get more money to expand the UK war machine. ..."
Barely a week after UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd warned the country not to
"jump
to conclusions" about who was behind a nerve gas attack on a former Russian double-agent, it appears Prime Minister Theresa May
is about to do just that...
In a late-breaking report,
the Sun
confirmed that May is preparing to name Russia as the perpetrator of the attack on Sergei
Skripal, a spy who was turned over to the UK in 2010 as part of a swap with Russia, after receiving
confirmation from her intelligence chiefs.
An intelligence assessment explaining the findings is reportedly being delivered overnight, and
will be on May's desk in the morning. The attack, which occurred at a shopping center in a quiet
suburban area, led to the hospitalization of
21 people,
and left Skripal, his daughter Yulia and a local officer who responded to the scene in
critical - but stable - condition.
The "tell" - as it were - was the presence of certain chemicals which are believed to
have been developed in a Russian laboratory.
The announcement is expected to take place
at 11 am during a meeting of May's National Security Council. A formal charge against Moscow could be
unveiled before the House of Commons could as early as this afternoon.
May might even go as
far as blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin personally for ordering the hit.
In their report to Mrs May, The Sun has learned that MI5 and MI6 chiefs will cite the very rare
substance used on ex-spy Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia as key evidence of the Kremlin's
involvement.
It is believed to have been developed in the SVR Russian foreign spy service's notorious
Yasenevo laboratory.
Mrs May will then summon an emergency meeting of her National Security Council at 11 am to
decide on the scale of Britain's retaliation.
The result of the finding could be more economic sanctions against Russia (which is still facing
sanctions tied to the annexation of Crimea).
However, UK ministers are still undecided on exactly how and when to retaliate.
A "full spectrum" package of expulsions and economic sanctions has been drawn up, along
with a plea for international support for them.
Of course, by blaming Russia for the attack, May be inadvertently doing Putin a favor. With Russian
elections set for next weekend, blaming Russia after such a short investigation could bolster Putin's
claims that Western powers are actively conspiring against him. Some have speculated that Russia
could've planned the attack for exactly this purpose, while others have pointed out that it bears some
hallmarks of a false flag attack intended to frame Russia.
Given the recent criticism that May is being "soft" on Russia, the timing of the announcement also
bears some hallmarks of a purely political decision meant to strengthen May's hand.
But it is feared that a strong reaction ahead of Russia's presidential elections next Sunday may
play into Putin's hands.
It is suspected that the Russian ruler sanctioned the brazen nerve agent attack simply to goad
Britain into a reaction that he can strike back against and look like a strongman standing up to
the West to voters.
Former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton said yesterday: "The more Putin can point
to Western hostility and aggression, the more he rallies the Russian people around him".
Sir Tony added: "Russia is number one on a list of suspects that doesn't include a
number two".
In a hint of action to come, the Chancellor said: "If there were to be an involvement of a
foreign state, then obviously that would be very serious indeed and the government would respond
appropriately.
Philip Hammond also told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show that Britain will not be humiliated by the
attack, that breaks every rule in the international book.
He added: "The vast resources that have been deployed and the high level assets that we have
been able to use show that nobody is laughing at us.
"This is a very serious investigation. Let's see where it leads us."
Mrs May came under mounting pressure last night from campaigners and her own MPs to hit
back at Russia.
So, once again, a Western power is blaming Russia for an attack, citing an obscure piece of Russian law which declares that
foreign assassinations must be approved by the Russian president. That, and some chemical markers that purport to trace back to
a Russian lab. Whether or not May decides to pursue sanctions, one thing is clear: Putin's words from an address he made to
Parliament earlier this month - where he unveiled a new nuclear weapon capable of bypassing NATO missile defenses - are resonating
more and more.
Theresa May is a frozen cunt, but Boris Johnson is, well Before running
his mouth and threatening to boycott the World Cup 2018 in Russia, he
should've checked the FIFA's rules.
According to
the Telegraph
,
A boycott would risk breaching FIFA's tournament
regulations, which dictate that "all participating member associations
undertake to play all of their matches until eliminated from the FIFA World
Cup".
Article 6 of those regulations states that any association that
withdraws could face sanctions,
"including the expulsion of the
association concerned from subsequent FIFA competitions"
[that
would be the World Cup 2022 in Qatar].
The Brits don't seem to mind being spied on by the GCHQ, they don't care
about the CCTV cameras everywhere, but if you take away their soccer/football,
they WILL pick up pitchforks and torches and they WILL fuck you up.
That's why Boris is backpedaling, "We will not send the UK government's
representatives".
Hey, Boris, I have a deal for you – let Julian Assange go and you can keep
your
BritBob
! ;-)
In their report to Mrs May, The Sun has learned that MI5 and MI6
chiefs will cite the very rare substance used on ex-spy Sergei Skripal
and daughter Yulia as key evidence of the Kremlin's involvement.
Everyone knows that MI5/MI6 were responsible for this, which is why they
have no choice other than blaming the Russians.
Theresa May knows who did it. She also knows what will happen to her if
she deviates from the official script given to her by MI5/MI6.
This makes absolutely no sense and has all the hallmarks of a CIA/MI6
false flag to keep the pressure on Russia in a Europe (particularly
Germany) leaning back towards opening trade with Russia.
It is also
interesting that NONE of the UK media have disclosed the fact that
Christopher Steele was a close associate. Might it be assumed that
much of Steele's "information" came from here? If so, and if
disclosed, it might be "inconvenient" for this person to be
questioned? But inconvenient for whom? Therein lies the answer.
In 1995, Sergey Skripal was
recruited
by
an MI6 undercover agent, Pablo Miller, who
at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez
de Hidalgo and working at the British
embassy in Tallinn, Estonia.
Pablo
Miller was exposed in the early 2000s,
after multiple Russians were arrested for
spying and fingered Miller as their
recruiter. One of his recruits was
Alexander Litvinenko.
Miller and Skripal met frequently:
Skripal (whose codename was "Forthwith")
passed the entire Russian military
intelligence telephone handbook to Miller,
containing details of more than 300 of his
colleagues in Russian intelligence. In
2006 Skripal was jailed.
After the spy swap in 2010, Skripal
decided to resettle in Salisbury, where
Pablo Miller also lived. In 2015 Miller
retired and received an OBE for services
to Her Majesty's Government. No doubt
Miller was Skripal's minder and was
probably the reason Skripal had gone to
Salisbury.
According to his LinkedIn entry
(deleted a few days ago), Miller worked as
a consultant for Christopher Steele –
Miller is the consultant whose name was
withheld by the Telegraph. Steele's Orbis Business
Intelligence was hired by Fusion GPS in
2016 to research Trump.
In testimony to the Senate Intelligence
Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was
stated that Daniel Jones (a member of
Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a
"shadow media organization helping the
government," and was funded by a "group of
Silicon Valley billionaires and George
Soros."
Between 26 November, 2017 and 10
January, 2018 George Soros (who is a
prolific tweeter) was silent. Not a
single tweet. Why, where was he?
Steele has refused to comment about
which projects involved Miller but given
Miller's Russian contacts, it is not
credible that the Trump dossier was not
one of them – in which case it is also not
credible that Skripal was also not
involved.
They sure do have a Russia bug up their butts. What's the real story? We'll
never know. But this sounds like the bogus Syrian gas attacks. Oh, well.
Russia will be incentivized to build up it's own industries and not be
reliant in any way on the West. Probably best for everybody in the long
run.
UK Must plead for War on Russia, it has too many problems at home which
threaten the Regime.
A) Planned Inflation, Big City Living, Rents, Cost of Living, Debts, Pounds
Expanded in new Finance/FIREs, just like dying empire
B) Dis-Unity, Polarization, Social Media, Alternative News, Fake News, People
know of Lies from Govt not Monarchy
C) Type Three Crisis, No Deflation, No Growth, Output Gap continues after 10
years... GINI Income Inequality is well known
They have teams working 24/7 on making shit up, namely the MI6 and the US
alphabet soup agencies, plus a whole array of PR firms. That being said, money
sure buys you serious propaganda firepower, but not brains.
Why would Putin
kill a spook who had been in jail in Russia, that he had swapped years ago and
who lived in Britain with no further connection to Russian intelligence? If he
had wanted the dude dead, why wait so long? Why not kill quietly when he was
in jail in Russia?
On the other hand, Litvinenko had been an MI6 agent, and so is Skripal. It
would seem that being an MI6 agent is not very good for your health,
especially when you are more use to them dead than alive.
Let alone the bombing of flight 9268 (
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34687990
)
after you knew all of your assets inside Ukraine during the siege by the "DPR" in
the Donbass airport incident left you "gutted" in May 2014... And Russian special
forces kicking the ever loving shit out of your SAS in Syria which has meant total
defeat for the Anglo-Zionist operation(s)?...
Take your time answering sweetie!... And above all else... PLEASE be
"THOUGHTFUL"!!!
After the over and over again false flag chemical attacks in Syria, which
have so far failed to spark a wider war, MI6 decides to try their luck with
the domestic variety.
I hope she has more evidence than '
the chemicals are know to be used by
the Russians
'. The Islamic terrorist attacks and policy of
importing immigrants hailing from the very nations that spawn the terrorists
is becoming deeply unpopular, enter the Russian bogeyman. TPTB need to
mobilize a new external threat to keep the peasants compliant to outrageous
revocation of rights, freedoms and true equalities. For example a perceived
imminent threat from Russia would provide extenuating circumstances to sell a
non-Brexit Brexit deal that essentially in all but name thwarts the
referendum.
I just don't see how offing some historic traitor on foreign
soil in such a public and exotic way is of any benefit to Russia.
As the Russia dun it meme/narrative Special Neocon Investigation dies a slow
death across the Atlantic, its vassal tag-team/ugly twin, in the City of
London, pick up the mantle/batton in order to prolong the mind-fuck.
The
sinister publishing group, News Corp ( Permanent Member of 5 Eyes Security
Council ) via its sister WSJ rag, The Sun, are once again CHOSEN as the
Official Conduit Flag-Bearers by the Ministry of Truthy Leaks.
This is not a false flag when the supposed gas attack occurred about eight
miles from where there is a UK government facility that experiments with such
agents?
Note that the UK military has been trying to hype the Russian threat
for the last several weeks to get more money to expand the UK war machine.
In Anocino (Moscow region ) seminar with participation of heads of regions was held. One lecture, that caused the resonance was
the lecture, which enumerated the secret operations of London against Russia. Judging by the puzzled reactions of some participants,
for many it was difficult to part with a cosy picture of Russian history, in which the main blame for mistortunes was assigned to
Russians themselves.
At the seminar in Anocino on Thursday was made by President Putin, and even before he spoke and answered questions from the head
of the Kremlin administration. After Sergei Ivanov speach, a lecture bout the history of the house of Romanov was goven by historian
Alexander Myasnikov, one of the authors exhibition currenly on display in Manezh. the title was "the Romanovs. My story". The text
of the lecture is not publicly available, but here is the summary given by RBC:
"Russia has a historical geopolitical opponent, who for many centuries sees our country as a threat to their plans of global
domination"
"His lecture was fully fit into the "conservative" worldview: many successful Russian tsars who tried to conduct policies which
did not suit the West had died under mysterious circumstances. The opposition financed from abroad, and the malorossia was formed
not Ukrainians.
Boris Godunov was the first elected king and a brilliant ruler. But famine and "external opposition" undermined his reforms.
In the end, the Godunov died suddenly, and from his symptoms clearly shows a head travma. He probaboly was hit from behind. Nicholas
I allegedly experienced suffering because of the defeat in the Crimean campaign. "But we didn't lose a single square meter in
the Crimean war," said Alexander Myasnikov and suggested that the serious consequences of the campaign was main promoted "by the
West". Alexander Myasnikov also added that "Bell" Herzen, in which he criticized Russia, was funded by the Rothschild. "This is
kid of the first "Wikileaks" style projects", he said and said that the newspaper had published reports about content of closed
meetings of the State Council".
According to RBC, performances historian angered the Kirov Governor Nikita Belykh, who even asked Sergei Ivanov: "do we understand
Correctly that this speech should be considered the official story? I think for the most part, your lecture consists of historical
tales and anecdotes". Special indignation of Nikita Belykh were course by historian assessment of the Crimean war, in which Russia
lost 150 thousand killed, and Herzen.
"I liked the lecture," Ivanov noted, emphazing that the lecture mentioned interesting but lettle known facts and it would be boring
to hear the repetition of facts from a textbook. "With regard to Herzen. He himselv mentioned that our eternal opponent is England,
which is truigng to weaked Russia all the written history of diplomatic relations between contries," added the head of the presidential
administration.
In this story it is noteworthy all - and the Ivanov reaction to the question of Nikita Belykh and then, as mockingly the liberal
press presents the performance Myasnikov, and, of course, the indignation of the Governor Belykh "with fairy tales and anecdotes".
Ivanov's assesment is extremely important and it comes from a person who had spent many years in London as foreign intelligence
officer is who is one of the closest allies of the President. He state without any reservations that this attempt of Great Britain
to weaten russia, which absolutely doesn't fit in the head of pro-Western Russian fifith column, is the truth.
Unfortunatly Russia has a historical geopolitical opponent, who for many centuries sees our country as a threat to their plans
of global domination and doing all it can to harm us. And will do so in the future, because this is the Anglo-Saxon style of dealing
with opponents, this is the very essence of the Anglo-Saxon attitude towards Russia. Or any other state which interfered with the
plans of world domination by London two centuries ago and prevents global project of Washington and London today. This is not surprising,
this is the nature of the confrontation of two different (both spiritually and politically) civilizations. It is really surprising
the considerable part of our post-Soviet "elite"does not want to acknowledge this simple truth . Maybe that's why they are increasingly
being referred to as a "fifth column"?
No, of course, most of those who categorically rejects the claim that the Anglo-Saxons are the historical geopolitical enemy of
Russia, do not consider themselve comrparors -- they sincerely believe that Russia has no eternal enemies, and indeed all our troubles
comefrom our negligence. From the fact that we are "less Europian then we should". That's how they were taught.
And even when they recognize that Russia has certain geopolitical enemies, like heppened now, when nobody in sound mind can't
deny that, something they try to explain this fact is that we are to blame, that we went too far in defending national interests
(this is the catch phrase they learned), and that it is possible to find a netotiated solution without capitulating to denmands of
the West.
But Russian history good at reminding us that this will never happen and it gives us numerous examples of forms and methods, from
covert to overt, which the Anglo-Saxons used to pursue thier policy of containment of Russia.
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... We haven't heard a single fact, we only watch TV coverage, where your colleagues speak fervently with serious faces that if it is Russia, the response will be that Russia will remember forever. It's not serious, it's propaganda at its finest and pressing hysteria " ..."
"... "I want to remind people that Litvinenko's death was also attributed to Russia, but hasn't been investigated, because court proceedings, which were called 'public,' were in fact closed. They were carried out in a very strange way, and numerous facts, which emerged throughout investigation, haven't come into the public domain. ..."
"... "We offered our assistance and cooperation; however, British justice decided that they are above this, and it was enough just to come out with a verdict which is not inclusive," ..."
Russophobia called to account as Russian Foreign Minister offers Moscow's help, confronting the British for uncooperative
attitude towards Moscow
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that his government is willing to cooperate with an ongoing
British investigation into the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergey Skripal and his daughter, Yulia. However,
Lavrov blasted the allegations that this was an act committed by the will of the Russian government, calling
these 'hysteria' and 'propaganda.'
We haven't heard a single fact, we only watch TV coverage, where your colleagues speak fervently with
serious faces that if it is Russia, the response will be that Russia will remember forever. It's not
serious, it's propaganda at its finest and pressing hysteria "
RT.com notes in their newspiece that Skripal died, but this appears to be a mistake
. What is true is that
Sergey's wife and son died in 2012 and 2017. At the time of this report, both Sergei and Yulia are in the
hospital in critical condition. In fact, there have been 21 people in total who have received medical treatment
as the result of the poisoning, which made many of them also seriously ill.
The nature of the agent used in this poisoning is not specifically known publicly, but the
British police did state that this was a 'nerve gas'
that was used. They have also stated that this was a
targeted assassination attempt.
The present climate of Russophobia and hysteria concerning 'all things Russia' has increased the ease at
which hysterical accusations abound in this situation. Lavrov called all this to account in addressing the
parallels attempted between this attack on the Skripals and the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which
was determined to have been caused by radiation poisoning from polonium-210. The foreign minister had this to
say:
"I want to remind people that Litvinenko's death was also attributed to Russia, but hasn't been
investigated, because court proceedings, which were called 'public,' were in fact closed. They were carried
out in a very strange way, and numerous facts, which emerged throughout investigation, haven't come into the
public domain.
"We offered our assistance and cooperation; however, British justice decided that they are above
this, and it was enough just to come out with a verdict which is not inclusive,"
Lavrov added, saying
that many facts linked to the tragedy have been
"swept under the carpet."
Those interested in the matter should turn to countries they wish to find answers from, not to
"propaganda channels,"
Lavrov added.
"... Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack. ..."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit:
Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg - 10:21 AM - 8 Mar 2018 Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces
intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal
attack.
When we look at how the corporate media is spinning this story, it seems to me that Craig
Murray's theory about using the incident to ramp up Russophobia has its merits.
This case looks more and more like Litvinenko II -- another false flag designed to implicate Russia a fuel anti-russian hysteria.
British MI6 are masters in such provocations.
Along with sabotaging Moscow soccer tournament this also can also be an attempt to distract from MI6 role is creation of Steele
dossier too.
Notable quotes:
"... Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995
by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn.
Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians. ..."
"... The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered
Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was
Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents.
Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer,
Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. ..."
"... Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..."
"... Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence,
transmitting information about Russian agents. ..."
"... Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did
he do to earn the higher pay? ..."
"... Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. ..."
"... If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he
must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown
under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as
high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free ..."
"... If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in
fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest
of riches ..."
"... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr
Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties. ..."
"... It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way... ..."
"... Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror'
mob do. ..."
"... The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened,
but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find
out what actually did occur. ..."
"... Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration. ..."
"... B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via
his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius.
Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide. ..."
"... On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide
all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such. ..."
"... Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge : Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people ..."
"... The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it. ..."
On Sunday a former British-Russian double agent and his daughter were seriously injured in a mysterious incident in Salisbury,
England. The British government
says that both were hurt due to "exposure to a nerve agent". Speculative media reports talk of Sarin and VX, two deadly nerve-agents
used in military chemical weapons. Anonymous officials strongly hint that 'Russia did it'.
New reports though point to a deep connection between the case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama
administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
Sergei Skripal
once was
a colonel in a Russian military intelligence service. In the early 1990s he was
recruited by
the MI6 agent Pablo Miller. He continued to spy for the Brits after his 1999 retirement. The Russian FSB claims that the British
MI6 paid him $100,000 for his service. At that time a Russian officer would only make a few hundred bucks per month. Skripal was
finally uncovered in 2004 and two years later convicted for spying for Britain. He was sentenced to 18 years and in 2010 he and other
agents ware exchanged in a large spy swap between the United States and Russia. Skripal was granted refuge in Britain and has since
lived openly under his own name in Salisbury. His wife and his son died over the last years of natural causes. The only near relative
he has left is his daughter who continued to live in Russia.
Last week his daughter flew to Britain and met him in Salisbury. On Sunday they went to a pub and a restaurant. At some point
they were poisoned or poisoned themselves. They collapsed on a public bench. They are now in intensive care. A policeman one the
scene was also seriously effected.
Authorities have declined to name the substance to which the pair is suspected to have been exposed,
but :
Local media had on Monday reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available
even on Salisbury's soporific streets.
I think this event is a ramp to offing Knesia Sobchak prior to or just after the national poll. She is a pawn of the West.
She has been directed to consolidate the disparate liberal opposition campaigns by the use of primaries...which would just happen
to result in her primacy. The idea is to have her win enough vote it can be alleged that she has embarrassed Putin...and then
they six her using VX. Her father was close go Putin during Putin's early years in St Pete. The BBC has been running chaff out
the foot saying Putin killed his mentor Anatoly Sobchak. Knesia has been moved into position. She will be offed to harm Putin's
reputation but also to place e a complex wound in him. The West are monsters
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become
clearer".
Yeah, right.
Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+ casualties
among the middle eastern population.
That kind of outrageous crime , correct?
One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low
what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.
I was wondering if Grigory Rodchenkov was in danger of meeting the same fate by some of the more unsavory elements of U.S. Intelligence
Agencies. He would become a poster boy for Russian assassinations on U.S. soil.
One thing about Rodchenkov, if the doping was not state sponsored, what motive would have have for doing it on his own, is
there enough money in the Olympics that individual athletes would bribe him or would it make him look better if his athletes did
better? I don't buy that it was state sponsored, or at least there is no evidence to that affect.
Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in
1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy
in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.
The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying
fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited
him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him
to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities'
suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium.
Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..
Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British
intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents.
Nikolai Luzan, who calls himself a colonel and a veteran of Russia's security agencies, wrote a detailed book about how
the British recruited Sergey Skripal. Luzan says his book, "A Devil's Counterintelligence Dozen," is an "artistic-documentary
production."
If we assume that Luzan's account is generally accurate, then Skripal was recruited during a long-term assignment in Malta
and Spain, where he "got greedy."
...
Further on:
Skripal led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought an average house for 340,000 British pounds (about $472,000).
His neighbors describe him as an ordinary, reasonably friendly pensioner. When he moved to the area, he even invited the whole
street over for a housewarming party.
It's unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but LinkedIn indicates that Pablo Miller -- the
MI6 agent who recruited him -- lives in the same town. In 2015, the year he retired, Miller received the Order of the British
Empire for services to Her Majesty's Government.
Skripal's wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in
2017 in St. Petersburg.
It must be Pablo Miller who worked with Steele ...
Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What
did he do to earn the higher pay?
Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. The UK's fairly well covered by CCTV; I'd be very interested
in what those in Salisbury observed. The incident has La Carre written all over it.
If someone like MI6 for FSB wanted him dead they would be instantly in a car accident of robbery attempt, they whoever they are,
wanted this to thing to prolong in time to feed the press Russia gate and wanted people like b to follow the trap since most of
the info here can be found just after few clicks, will be picked up by rational people.
If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it,
he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will
be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of
ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free .
If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories
in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional
quest of riches .
In the society of control ruling elite controls everything it needs to control and hence is responsible for this. Case closed.
The Russian double agent poisoned in Salisbury may have become a target after using his contacts in the intelligence community
to work for private security firms, investigators believe.
Sergei Skripal could have come to the attention of certain people in Russia by attempting to "freelance" for companies run
by former MI5, MI6 and GCHQ spies, security sources say.
... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether
Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way...
For me it was particularly suss when the Leceister Police who are the coppers on the ground in Salisbury were heavied by Scotland
Yuk ( or 'the met' as englander papers call that gang of proven torturers & murderers) to
turn the Skripsky investigation over to the 'counter-terror squad'
- the mob of thugs whose skillful manipulation of england's media combined with
evidence falsification made their
indicted murder of Brazilian electrician
Jean Charles de Menezes seem like an heroic act by playing the old honest whitefella card - "all those brownfellas look the same,
who can tell the difference?" . No copper, not the killers or the idiot in charge suffered any disciplinary actiion, much less
a criminal one. IIRC the policeperson in charge who claimed to be 'in the bathroom' at the time of de Menzeses murder, one Cressida
Dick, is now chief commissioner, the boss of Scotland Yuk.
The local coppers know the area and will have a rapport with witnesses that a mob of arseholes in sharp suits backed by balaclava
wearing armed heavies is unlikely to enjoy, so why grab the gig especially since it is certain to remain unsolved?
Well partly that, to make sure it remains unsolved, but also because counter-terror plays the press release regurgitators who
are englander 'journos' like a fine old violin. Questions about fentanyl being a nerve agent get tricky? Spin the chooks a yarn
about evil a-rabs you have met.
Kalen is right. Such a flamboyant killing is not how modern intelligence agencies dispose of problems. Unless they want to draw
attention to their work.
Maybe there's a bunch of people around the Christopher Steele dossier thinking of talking. What better way to shut them up
than to knock off a Steele source.
It could always be a simple & rather human explanation - The daughter was struggling for cash at home, dad was old but refused
to die & had a stash of cash from his past, she knocked him off to get an earlier inheritance but being an amateur at this she
did herself in too, which would be poetic justice...?
It is highly unlikely that fentanyl was the toxin that poisoned Skribal and his daughter. That hypothesis should be excluded at
this point.
The main reason for this is that the patrol man who discovered them also came down with similar symptoms. Fentanyl is extremely
toxic when injected intravenously. But not to any one coming into contact with them, touching them or even performing mouth to
mouth resusication.
There are numerous acetyl choline inhibitors (e.g. sarin, vx, and many other similar compounds that have never been approved
for chemical warfare) that can cause symptoms if someone comes into contact with an intoxicated patient especially one has be
exposed externally.
Also the Portland Down lab has identified an ACE inhibitor (of course, that is part of the British military and they could
very easily be lying.)
In any case, this looks like a nerve toxin poison, fentanyl is not in that class.
Fentanyl patchs are used to control intense chronic pain...If he resigned from GRU because of health issues, as the "Meduzas"
affirm, it might be related to this chronic pain and so he could well be a patient using this drug for pain control.....
Thus,
fentanyl is not a nerve agent, but an anesthesic in any case....All could well be a performance...to blame the Russians and contribute
to scare the population about them previous to some machination to be mounted at......Do not forget that that factory of mannequin
challenges broadcasts, the White Helmets, is also a British "enterprise", creation of "former" MI6 LeMesurier....
Yesterday when questions about fentanyl were raised, the sick policeman was identified, up until that point all that had been
said was that the bill first on the scene were admitted to be checked out by medics. Today the close to death's door copper is
in fine fettle once again. I leave it up to others to decide whether he was crook (sick - an Oz term) or the imported police were
crooks (lying).
Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what
the 'counter-terror' mob do. If they were really opposed to scaring the bejeezuz outta englanders which is what their name
implies they would A) be better at preventing actions which they hadn't cranked up themselves for entrapment and B) not imagine
it was on the up and up to terrify the burghers of Salisbury with yarns about possible 'nerve agent' on the loose that were placing
the town's population at risk.
The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever
happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they
do trying to find out what actually did occur. The form of this gang of sleek deceitful killers means that just because they
claim this local woodentop was poisoned, it doesn't mean that is what actually befell him.
Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration.
It seems that MI6 was keeping Sergei Skripal on a tight leash by having him live in Salisbury close to Pablo Miller who must be
the old fellow's minder as well as recruiter. One way of keeping Skripal on this leash must be to supply him with an addictive
painkiller, for whatever pain he is suffering (physical, perhaps psychological?), and fentanyl fits the bill.
Fentanyl also fits the bill for a poisoning agent that also affected the police officer who attended the Skripals. The fentanyl
epidemic is apparently forcing emergency and first-response personnel to re-evaluate procedures in handling patients so that they
themselves are not affected by sniffing fentanyl accidentally.
B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow
via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke
of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide.
Nobody died. Only 3 remain in hospital and are not endangered.
On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will
provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such.
The question raised by the link offered by Oyyo at 6 (at least 21 affected by the "neurotoxin"), the comments offered by Debisdead
at 21, and the note from Craig Murry about the nearby chemical site: Was this an attack targeting Skripal at all, or some other
kind of "misadventure"? There are so many opportunities to use this kind of incident, by entities capable of spinning it this
way and that, that it doesn't give to us individuals reading the news much hope of ever learning the truth.
A police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital after he brushed fentanyl residue off his
uniform, allowing the drug to enter his system through his hands. The officer had apparently encountered the opioid earlier
in the day while making a drug bust.
Fenatanyl acts on the nervous system so could be described as a "nerve agent", particularly by a British politician or civil servant.
In addition to the three inpatients**** who are currently receiving treatment in relation to the incident, in line with Public
Health England guidance, which asked anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell to come forward,
the Trust has seen and assessed a number of people who did not need treatment.
**** - These are Sgt Nick Bailey & the two original victims.
The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
© Photo : Screenshot Screenshot
© Photo : Screenshot Screenshot
© Sputnik / Vitaly Belousov UK Integrity Initiative Project Aims to Damage Russia's Public Image - Lavrov
expansion, except in the sense that "security" means operational freedom. You can find references to Russia's nuclear weapons, though, which are described as defensive, designed "to counter US forces and weapons systems." [vii] Try finding that on the BBC. I should mention that even "defensive" nukes can be launched accidentally.
© missannawebb / Instagram In one of the least surprising developments in an ongoing story, the Sun newspaper has been forced to remove a report from its website in which a Russian model claims Vladimir Putin is trying to kill her. The article has since been removed " for legal reasons, " and, some are speculating, probably for some 'truth' reasons as well.
'Putin wants me dead': Russian 'model' seduces UK tabloids with new Salisbury poisoning claims
'Alexander Petrov' and 'Ruslan Boshirov' are seen in an image handed out by the Metropolitan Police in London, Britain / Reuters Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. Saying that there is "nothing criminal" about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.
British prosecutors name the 2 Russians suspected of poisoning the Skripals
Names of 'Russian suspects' in Skripal case published by UK don't mean anything to us – Moscow
British PM says two suspects in Skripals poisoning case are Russian military intelligence officers
'No cause for further investigation' into 14 deaths of people linked to Russia – May
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 3:55 pm
After Magnitsky: Dead lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Russia slaps travel ban on 5 US ex-officials over 'legalization of torture'
Key Magnitsky case witness may have been poisoned – report
The film, entitled "The Browder Effect," was assembled by the channel's investigative reporter and presenter in his own right, Yevgeni Popov. The full version of "The Browder Effect" will be aired on Wednesday evening, 13 April on Russia's flagship network, Pervyi Kanal. However, from the lengthy segments shown on Sunday it is possible to draw some conclusions about the sensational material it sets out.
via
A guard at one of
the lab entrances at Porton Down, October 1968. © C. Woods / Getty Images
Russia has 13
questions to OPCW over Skripal case
UK may have
staged Skripal poisoning to rally people against Russia, Moscow believes
