Bashing the Burqa: Boris Johnson Speaks for England

James Delingpole:

[I]n positioning himself as a gently mocking opponent of the burqa, Boris has done his political cause no disservice: at little personal cost and with zero effort he has suddenly established himself as Britain’s Voice of Common Sense — the politician who says what everyone is thinking.

But the real winning move for Boris is the one that all his opponents have been making.

... Every time an Islamist pressure group shrieks “Islamophobia” (while remaining strangely unmoved by: terrorism; rape gangs; FGM; no-go zones; honour killings)…

Every time another SJW “explains” on Twitter how only Muslims can joke about burqas and that for everyone else the entire religion is off limits…

Every time another Remoaner Conservative demands that Boris should apologise — or be disciplined, or resign for saying something that the vast majority of British people agree with…

Every time the BBC runs yet another story giving just one side of the argument — the anti-Boris, anti-Brexit, pro-Islamist side, obvs…

…the majority of people in Britain just shake their heads and go: “This is why I voted Brexit.”

And it makes them more determined than ever to make sure that Brexit happens.

Full article: Here

Understanding "the Right to Chose"

Via: The Maverick Philosopher

Europe's Dying People

Click for a larger image. Source

The people of Europe's are dying.
There is not a European nation with a total fertility rate at, or in excess of, the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Moreover, in all European-majority countries, the total fertility rate among Europeans is less than that of the population as a whole, with the fertility of immigrants, taken together, being greater than the European rate, in some cases massively so.
In Britain, for example, while white British women have a fertility rate of barely two-thirds the replacement rate, the rate for immigrants from Libya is over 5.5.


Such number indicate that the European nations are committing suicide to make way for people from what are, for the most part, vastly larger and more populous countries than their own. To all of Britain's last half dozen or so governments, and presumably the governments of most other European majority states, the death of the nation must be regarded as a good thing. That is why we designate the likes of May, Merkel, and Micron members of the Treason Party. Either the people kick the traitors out, or the traitors will destroy the people.

FarceBook: The Stupid Face of Tyranny

Today, Facebook suspended the Natural News account after it posted a quote by Mohandas Gandhi, leader of India's independence movement and an advocate of non-violent protest. Here's the quote:

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, page 446.

Inflammatory, eh!

These techies really are geniuses — at getting money, that is. Otherwise, LOL.

Well, actually, it's not funny. They seem to have the mentality of the Gestapo. 

As Natural News commented:

This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook's censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a "final warning" that one more violation of their so-called "community guidelines" would result in our account being permanently deactivated. They then demanded we send them a color copy of a "government issued identification" in order to reactivate our account. ...

The tyrannical mentality of Zucks and co. becomes evident when one realizes that Ghandi's statement about the British disarming Indians reflected Ghandi's belief, shared by the US Congress which passed the Second Amendment to the Constitution,* in the right of a free people to deploy violence in defense against an oppressive government. Thus, in his Doctrine of the Sword, Ghandi wrote:

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. ...

———
* The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That India was not a "free State", was of course, the reason the Brits denied Indians the right to bear arms. Likewise, today, Ameria is not a free state, hence application of the First Amendment to the US constitution, recognizing the right of free speech is ignored with impunity by the techie tyrants.

Related:

Breitbart: Midterm Meddling: Facebook Blocks Republican Candidate’s Ad

Why Did It Take the Geniuses of Tech Until Now to Discover That Alex Jones of Infowars Is Full of Crap

Here's what we wrote seven years ago:

If you thought Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley was a historian, think again. In this video, Tarpley and Alex Jones compete to spout the most rubbish about the British Parliamentary system of government. That was two years ago. Since then, they have learned nothing as this discussion arising out of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton demonstrates. According to these geniuses, Britain and 15 other countries nominally headed by Britain's constitutional monarch are, in reality as well as in name, largely ruled by the octogenarian great grandmother, Elizabeth Windsor, who Tarpley decribes as a degenerate, psychopathic, genocidal Nazi maniac. Astounding. They cannot really be that stupid can they? But if not, what propaganda interest do they serve? For the record (from Wikipedia): In Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch ('A Limited Monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna Carta). Today the monarchy in Britain is politically neutral and by convention the role is largely ceremonial.[1] No person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. The claim agreed upon by these wackos that the Queen dissolves Parliament at will, chooses the Prime Minister, sets the Government's agenda by the "Queen's speech," declares war or made the decision to evict the residents of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia to make way for an American air base is a farrago of nonsense or simply a collection of preposterous lies. Read More Source: CanSpeccy, Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley: Propagating Looney Lies About the British Monarch

Also in 2011 we pointed out another load of garbage from Jones in a piece entitled:

Cecil Rhodes' secret society for Anglo-Saxon global empire and Alex Jones--Master of Misdirection

That the tech media companies, Apple, Facebook, Youtube and Spotify took until now to figure out that Alex Jones is fake news, suggests that the geniuses of tech are not quite as as bright as they seem to think their fabulous wealth implies. That they acted against the lying loose wheel Jones only in concert, suggests that they don't have much in the way of guts either. 

Abolish the Income Tax

Among nations of hunters, there is hardly any property. People usually have nothing to gain from injuring others, and there is little need for any formal administration of justice. But where property exists, things are otherwise. There are potential gains from theft. The avarice and ambition of the rich, or the desire for ease and enjoyment among the poor, can lead to private property being invaded. ...  It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. Adam Smith: The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

In Canada the rich have done well in recent years. The total wealth of the top 20% of the population exceeds $8 trillion, or more than $1.3 million per person, versus an average net worth of about $7,000 for the remaining 80% the population.

Why then should the 80% pay Federal tax on income in excess of a starvation wages of just over $11 thousand, to provide security for the 20%, with an average of 185 times as much wealth as they themselves possess?

Not only are ordinary working Canadians taxed on ridiculously small amounts of income, but they are subject to multiple other imposts from provincial income and sales taxes, the Federal GST, UI payments, and multiple hidden taxes and duties such as the gas tax, and taxes passed on to them in the price of goods and services that they purchase, including import duties, business licenses many other government imposed charges.

It is time to redress the balance between the rich beneficiaries of police and military protection from both domestic and foreign thieves and predators, and the poor who mostly respect the rights of the wealthy while themselves subsisting on, and possessing, very little. 

To start with, then, let's abolish the income tax, source of half the Federal Government's revenue. True rich people pay most of it, but by deferral of capital gains tax, tax shelters, offshoring of revenue to the Bahamas, Panama, or other tax havens, the rich usually pay rather trivial amounts of income tax relative to their total income.

To compensate for the lost revenue, the first thing the Federal Government can do is cut spending, including spending on programs to help poor people who, having been freed of the income tax, won't now be quite so poor. But assuming that pissing away about half the wealth of the country on mindless bureaucracy and the destruction of national resources such as the Atlantic cod fishery,  and the Pacific Salmon fishery is what governments in Canada are irrevocably committed to doing, then an alternative to the income tax as a source of revenue will be required. 

The best solution would be to jack up the GST from the current 5% to around 20%, which is less by a substantial margin than the sales tax, or VAT, levied in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Hungary and Croatia where the rate is 25% or more.

True, the GST is a burden on poor people. But it can be refunded in full to the 80% based on their tax returns. The GST would then serve as a consumption tax on rich people. The rich would be able to avoid the GST by spending less, but in so doing they would contribute to the development of the economy by investing their saved income in productive ways that will, in general, be beneficial to all. 

In addition, if a shortfall of revenue remains, the gap should be filled by a yearly capital tax of one  percent on all  wealth in excess of, say, $10 million. Such a tax, which would affect only the O.01%, would bring in not much less than $80 billion, which would be more than enough to cover any gap that might otherwise exist in the Federal Budget. 

Why is Trump fighting the trade war?

Writing at the American Thinker, Greg Richards asks:

Why is Trump fighting the trade war?

Critics of Trump's trade policies think everything is okay if we don't do anything. The chart at the right shows that everything is not okay if we don't do anything. Here's why:

This is a chart of capital spending in the U.S. from 1968 through to the present. It is a straightforward presentation of monthly data from the Commerce Department. There is nothing clever, nothing tricky about this presentation or about the time frame chosen. The Commerce Department started this series in 1968. It superseded another series on capital spending. Why is this chart important? It is a death sentence for America.

Why so? Here's the explanation that no university-trained economist can understand because they've never read David Ricardo, they just accepted the lies their professors taught them*. 

... Economists think mercantilism can never work, thus Trump attacking it as practiced by China is a fool's errand or worse. This is based on the early 19th-century Theory of Comparative Advantage developed by David Ricardo. It states that among trading parties, even if one party's production costs are greater in all goods than the other party's, the first party should focus on those goods where it has a comparative advantage – i.e., where its own cost of production is lower. If the two countries then trade, both will improve their welfare. If, under these conditions, a country practices mercantilism, it impoverishes itself. This is a substantial insight. But it depends on a key assumption: that capital is fixed. Ricardo's example was that the British should raise sheep and the French should make wine, and they should trade these goods with each other. The example was based on climate, the ultimate in fixed capital. With capital mobile, as it is now, mercantilism works. By forcing a trading partner to move its assets, technology, know-how, intellectual property, and R&D to the mercantilist country in order to participate in its market, a country can build itself up at the expense of its trading partner. Following its accession to the WTO, China has been strip-mining the U.S. economy of high value-added industries and high-wage jobs by doing this.

*And why did their professors teach them lies?

For the reason that the late, great Canadian economist, John Kenneth Galbraith explained: because all universities are controlled by very rich people or their puppets and very rich people are globalists, intent on moving their capital (including technology) from the rich countries, where wages are high, to poor countries, where wages are low, thereby increasing the return to capital. That means impoverishing the people of the rich countries who lose their source of wealth, namely, their jobs.

Do today's teachers of economics deliberately lie? Probably not. Today, no one seems to read original sources. The required qualification for a university teaching job is not knowledge, wisdom or the ability to think, but proof of having received a requisite number of hours of instruction in approved courses, all taught, not from original sources, but from textbooks created by publishing giants owned by globalist corporations with no interest in promoting understanding of the economic consequences of globalization among those who are its victims.

Read entire article at the American Thinker

Thanks to Vox Pop for the reference

Hungary's Victor Orban States the Conditions for National Survival

Victor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, has enunciated the principles on which he believes the survival of the Eastern European nations depends. Stated in general terms these principles are a precondition to the survival of every nation:

... every  country has the right to defend its ... culture, and to reject the ideology of multiculturalism. ... every country has the right to defend the traditional family model, and is entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father. ... every country has the right to defend the strategic economic sectors and markets which are of crucial [national] importance. ... every country has the right to defend its borders, and it has the right to reject immigration.

Opinion polls leave no doubt that the great majority in every European country support these principles.

Yet the majority of Western states, including those headed by the three M's, the childless May, Merkel and former Rothschild banker, Micron, pursue the globalist agenda for cultural and racial genocide of the European nations through the suppression of native fertility, mass replacement immigration, multiculturalism, destruction of family values, and the export of jobs to the lowest-wage jurisdictions.

Will Soros, the Koch Brothers and the rest of the globalist Money Power reduce mankind to a mongrelized mass in a post-democratic world with a degraded culture arising as a byproduct of the commercial system? Or is Orban's Hungary the starting place for the anti-globalist rebellion?

Not all university professors are scoundrels or morons

Not all university professors are scoundrels or morons. Here's one who's not:

A FaceBook post by NYU professor Michael Rectenwald:

We’re undergoing a Maoist-like Cultural Revolution — with the power of the corporate mass media, corporate social media, the academy, most of corporate America, the deep state, the shadow government, and most of the legal apparatuses behind it. Anti-western, anti-individual, anti-Christian, anti-liberty monsters are ravaging our cultural legacies as well as our contemporary arts and letters. Our entire culture is under siege and undergoing an utter and relentless social justice dismantling. Leftist totalitarianism is running amok. We’re on the precipice of completely losing our culture, the benefits of western civilization, and the entire legacy of western civilizational history. A major resurgence and counter attack is necessary and soon.

Also, by Michael Rectenwald:

Why Political Correctness Is Incorrect

And about Michael Rectenwald:

Daily Caller: EXCLUSIVE: ANTI-PC PROFESSOR SUING NYU SPEAKS OUT

And more at Michael Rectenwald's personal Web site.

White Racism Bad: Black Racism Good?

Beside a few thousand hunter gatherer Bushmen (Khoisan), the Europeans were the first South Africans, settling there long before the African tribes, including the Zulus and Xhosas, that migrated to the territory from the North. 

The first European settlers [arrived] in South Africa in 1488... This ethnic group has a Dutch, French, German, and English ancestors. Around 61% of them are called Afrikaners and speak Afrikaans, which has its roots in the Dutch language. Another 36% speak English. They account for just over 8% of the entire South African population. (Source: World Atlas)

 So:

When the early Portuguese sailors (cf. Vasco Da Gama and Bartholomew Dias) rounded the Cape of Good Hope in the 15th century very few Bantu speakers were found there. The predominant indigenous population around the Cape was made up of Khoisan peoples. Following the establishment of the Dutch Cape Colony [in 1652], European settlers began arriving in Southern Africa in substantial numbers. Around 1770 Trekboers from the Cape encountered Bantu speakers around the Great Fish River and frictions arose between the two groups. (Source: Wikipedia)

But the time of the white South African farmer is apparently up. For years, white farmers in South Africa have faced a high risk of violent crime and murder:

Activists say South African authorities are tacitly approving attacks on the country’s white farmers, with one being murdered every five days, and the police turning a blind eye to the violence. The white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum says that ... there have been 109 recorded attacks so far in 2018 and 15 farm murders, meaning that this year, one white farmer has been killed every five days. (Source: Newsweek)

Now the ethnic cleansing of white South African farmers has  become the object of constitutional "reform." According to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa:

the ruling African National Congress must initiate a parliamentary process to enshrine in the constitution a proposed amendment, paving the way for land grabs without compensation. Ramaphosa, who vowed to return the lands owned by the white farmers since the 1600s to the country's black population after he assumed office in February this year, said on Tuesday that the ANC would introduce a constitutional amendment in parliament.

Few in Europe seems to care, although the Aussies are admitting white farmers from South Africa, as are the Russians. 

Following Australia’s offer of fast tracking visas for White South African farmers in April, Russia has now agreed to take 15,000 Boers. The decision by the Russian government to allow the immigration follows the well documented troubles in South Africa, where White farmers are being attacked or killed in an attempt by the ANC to reclaim land. In Australia, The Boers are already making a successful home for themselves in and around Perth. (Source: Defend Europa)

Meantime, it is reported that:

... the Khoisan, or Kung, people of South Africa, the true original inhabitants, demand that, before expropriating land from white South Africans, the government hand title to all land back to them. (Source: Sunday Times)

How soon, one wonders, before the poverty-stricken, knife-wielding, acid throwing "refugees," from Africa, Asia and the Middle East that have become the majority in the great, formerly European cities of New York, London, Paris, Birmingham, Franckfurt am Main, etc., will demand, through the ballot box, constitutional "reform" to dispossess what remains of the indigenous white population of their property. In this, the settlers will be assisted by the billionaire representatives of the Money Power,  including the Koch Brothers:

Pro-mass immigration GOP mega-donor billionaire Koch brothers are threatening to support Democrats who push for open borders and multinational free trade in the upcoming midterm elections. During a conference with millionaire and billionaire donors, officials with the Kochs’ network of organizations said that they would gladly put funding in the pockets of Democrats so long as they support aspects of their agenda, which include promoting mass immigration and job-killing free trade deals..(Source: Breitbart)

And George Soros:

... billionaire George Soros wants the European Union to deal with the continent’s refugee crisis by maintaining an open borders policy... (Source: Daily Caller)

Related:
Daily Caller: NY Times Latest Editorial Hire Tweeted: “Dumbass f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants", etc.

You're Either With the People or You're With Globalist Money Power

Would you be proud to be a Canadian, a, ....er, resident, of what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calls "the world's first post-national state"? Or do you believe that Canadians should care first for their own people and the preservation of their traditional culture and morality, not the profitability of global capital?

The following from an article in First Things, by Matthew Schmitz, draws attention to the way in which the world of capital and its lackeys strive to shape cultural norms to their own purpose.

These are the culture war’s true battle lines. On one side are well-scrubbed members of the managerial class who believe that any constraint on the free movement of labor, goods, and capital is a violation of “global values.” They are fully committed to the central project of neoliberalism: the insulation of markets from democratic pressure. They also wish to protect desire from any legal, cultural, or moral restraint. On the other side are unwashed people of varying political stripes who intuit that economic life should be subject to political authority, which today rests in the nation. They believe in moral norms and national boundaries. Christians need to practice cultural realpolitik. No explanation of the meaning of marriage, however ­rigorously argued or scrupulously secular, can overcome the power of a managerial elite that is wholly opposed to the kind of society for which Christians hope. Refusal to see this has been fatal to the traditionalists’ cause. While ­arguing against liberal social changes, they have cheered economic policies that harm their natural allies and aid their opponents. They have handed a shovel to their own gravedigger. Progressives now stand with global capital, as the Pride Parade so clearly shows. Christians in turn should stand with the working class, which is more religious, more diverse, and more patriotic than the managerial elite. Only by reducing inequality and restraining corporations can Christians avoid being buried. Only by challenging the ideology of free markets and open borders can they advance their view of the common good. The struggle between woke capital and the working class will determine the outcome of the culture war.

 Thanks to the Maverick Philosopher for the link.

Quote of the Decade:

Bernie Sanders,
July 28, 2015

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein of Vox, and Klein asked Sanders about "open borders."

Sanders:

Open borders" is a Koch brothers proposal — a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. It would make everybody in America poorer - you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. (Source)

Mass replacement immigration to the European nations is an open borders policy implemented by globalist stooges and traitors across the West, including the three M's, May, Merkel and Micron, plus Trudeau and Obama.



Related:

Breitbart: Midterms: Billionaire Koch Brothers Threaten to Support Democrats Pushing Open Borders, Free Trade

Britain's Novichok Poisonings: An Opportunistic Anti-Russian Propaganda Operation?

What follows is a hypothesis to explain the reported Novichok poisonings of the Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia, and the Amesbury couple, Charlie Rowley and the late Dawn Sturgess.

In formulating this hypothesis I have drawn on information and ideas provided by some of those commenting on Ambassador Craig Murrray's blog, and on what is known of the physiological action of nerve agents and opiates.

In considering this hypothesis, readers should be aware that what I am proposing is stark contradiction of the May Government's position and the  claims attributed by British media to police and Security Service sources. However, such police and Security Services statements quoted thus far have a high degree of deniability in the event that evidence to emerge in the future renders the narrative they promote inoperative, to use the immortal terminology of Richard Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler.

Thus for example, on July 19, the Guardian reported the Press Association "quoting a source with knowledge of the Skripal case as saying:"

Investigators believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the novichok attack through CCTV and have cross-checked this with records of people who entered the country around that time. They [the investigators] are sure they [the suspects] are Russian.

So if you find compelling the Guardian's report of the Press Association quoting what someone said to have knowledge of the case is said to have said, then read no further. 

Equally, you may find reassuring the July 20, report in the Telegraph that: 

Russian agents responsible for the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury sent a coded message to Moscow which included the phrase, "The package has been delivered"

That no indication is provided as to how it was determined either that the senders of the message were "Russian agents responsible for the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury" or that the wording "the package has been received" had anything to do with the use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction in Salisbury, England (rather than, say, the delivery of a pair of pants from the dry cleaners), may for some detract from the force of the Telegraph's story. Also questionable, is the provenance of the information, the attribution being simply to:

A British intelligence listening station based in Cyprus, [that] allegedly picked up [the] message shortly after former Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, were attacked in March.

Alleged by whom, we are not to be informed. 

So, yes, why not consider an alternative account. 

In the immediate aftermath of the Skripal poisonings, the British media speculated on the possibility of fentanyl as the poison, on the assumption that the Skripals were opioid drug users poisoned by heroin cut with fentanyl. Thus the Telegraph reported on March 6:

Early reports suggested that colonel Skripal and the unnamed woman may have been exposed to the synthetic drug, Fentanyl, which is up to 10,000 times more powerful than heroin and has been linked to scores of deaths in the UK.

Which is consistent with the March 16, letter to the Times from Salisbury Trust Hospital's consultant in Emergency Medicine, Dr. Stephen Davies, who wrote:

“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... Source

Which suggests an interpretation of the CCTV images below, which, according to the Guardian, shows: "two people walking near the spot where a former Russian spy and his daughter were found slumped on a bench in Salisbury." 

Who are those two people? The Amesbury poisoning victims, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess? So it has been suggested.

And what about the red bag, the blonde woman is carrying? Is it the red bag found beside the bench where the Skripals were stricken?

Could the bag have delivered the poison?

In 2015, Charlie Rowley was jailed for eight weeks for:

... possession of eleven wraps of heroin and theft of £1,700 from Matthew Rowley. He was already serving a suspended sentence for driving while banned... Source

So was Charlie supplying heroin to Sergei Skripal? And if so, was the drug cut with fentanyl, creating a combination that has proved deadly to tens of thousands?

And if that's what happened, is it not possible that Charlie and his partner Dawn Sturgess, known drug users, fell victim to the same potentially lethal drug cocktail?

But if so, whence the Novichok?

One explanation, which I outlined here, is that both the Skripals, and Rowley and Burgess were not poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok but treated with Novichok as an antidote to poisoning with an the opioid respiratory inhibitor, fentanyl. 

At lethal concentrations, nerve poisons such as BZ, botulinum toxin (the latter much more poisonous that Novichok), or fentanyl inhibit the release of acetyl choline at the neuromuscular junction, resulting in respiratory arrest and death by suffocation.

The organo-phosphorus nerve agents, of which Novichok is one, have the opposite effect: they inhibit the activity of the enzyme acetyl choline esterase, thereby preventing breakdown of acetyl choline released at the neuromuscular junction. The result is convulsive muscular contraction causing death due to asphyxiation. Novichok thus has potential to serve as an antidote to fentanyl. 

Was Novichok administered to the Skripals, and to Rowley and Burgess as  an antidote to fentanyl poisoning? 

That we do not know. But we do know that staff at Britain's chemical and biological weapons research establishment at Porton Down, just a few miles from where both alleged Novichok poisonings occured, were consulted on treatment of the Skripals. 

What advice did they give? 

There appears to be no public information on that. But since fentanyl poisoning can be deadly, why would they not have proposed an organophosphorus nerve agent, such as Novichok as an antidote, even if such treatment was untested and potentially harmful?

Splendidly, from the point of view of those seeking to demonize Putin's Russia, use of Novichok as an antidote to whatever the victims were poisoned with, whether it be botulinum toxin in a seafood salad lunch, a dose of BZ administered by means unknown, or fentanyl-laced heroin, it provided a basis for accusing Russia of an atrocity on British soil.

The evidence? Why the name of the poison, of course. Novichok. With a name like that, it's got to be from Putin's Russia. 

But on what evidence was use of Novichok claimed? 

Well none at all really, except the word of Porton Down, and, in the case of the Skripals, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare, which had samples of blood from the Skripals analyzed and found them to contain Novichok. 

And that, according to the above hypothesis, Porton Down would have known without need of testing, since they themselves had supplied the Novichok and supervised its use under the carefully controlled, and therefore relatively safe, conditions of the Salisbury Trust Hospital. 

Perhaps Theresa May's or her subordinates will someday offer more conclusive evidence of Russian responsibility for the Novichok "poisonings," but don't hold your breath. 

Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks

The official British Government account of the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and of the Amesbury druggies, Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, makes no sense, as many people, including UK Ambassador Craig Murray and former UK MP, George Galloway, have publicly stated. In particular, the assertion of UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her African Law and Order Minister, Savage Javage, that the poisonings were the work of the Russian state has no demonstrated basis whatever.

Why, then, has the British Government put itself in the ridiculous, and seemingly foolish, position of insulting Russia on the basis of completely unsubstantiated charges of Russia responsibility for atrocities in England with a banned chemical weapon of mass destruction?

The answer, it would seem, is that the British Government seeks to raise tension with Russia in justification of ever more stringent economic sanctions; the objective being to weaken, and thereby facilitate the overthrow, of the Russian state. The objective would then be to break Russia into a multiplicity of fiefdoms ruled by Poroshenkite corruptionists who, for a percentage, will sell out Russia's resources to the billionaires and international corporations that make up the globalist Money Power. The end game will them be to place NATO bases around the borders of China and force Chinese assimilation to the New World Order under the heel of the Money Power.

But whatever the motivation, why the incompetence of the charade?

The answer could be rather simple: Conspiracy theorists.

Since the 9/11, the Internet has allowed smart conspiracy theorists to provide compelling evidence of state crimes against democracy (SCADs). In particular, they have demonstrated a capacity for hard-nosed forensic investigation that leaves the criminals in government dangerously exposed.

The challenge for the manipulative state is thus how to pursue a program of opinion management through state terrorism without exposing state-actors to public exposure. The solution, it may have been decided, is simply to ensure that whatever is made public about state acts of terrorism is heavily salted with complete nonsense, thereby insuring that no coherent account of events as they have been made known to the public is possible.

The official account concerning the Salisbury/Amesbury poisonings  is certainly consistent with a state-backed operation directed against Russia to be cloaked by a fog of nonsensical reports from police, intelligence service, and government sources thereby, defying rational analysis.

Related:

Craig Murray: The Silence of Whores
Alexander Mercouris: Letter From Britain: An Establishment Blinded By Russophobia

Jews Promoting Anti-Semitism

In an interview with Recode, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, said that Facebook will not automatically remove posts denying the Jewish Holocaust. Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that "people get [things] wrong" and that he doesn't think they are "intentionally getting it wrong." He then stated in a post-interview email that he personally finds Holocaust denial "deeply offensive" and that he "absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that [i.e., the Jewish Holocaust]".

On the face of it, Mark Zuckerberg seems mentally challenged on the issue. If people who deny the Holocaust are simply misinformed, as Zuckerberg appears to assume, then that is a matter for error correction, not deep offense. If on the other hand, Zuckerberg finds, as he claims, that Holocaust denial is "deeply offensive" that can logically only mean that he assumes the denial is inspired by anti-Semitism not a commitment to historical truth.

What we see, then, is a Jew running what is the World's most wide-reaching media corporation facilitating the spread of anti-Semitism, in the pretense that it is not anti-Semitism, while simultaneously holding that it is deeply offensive because, well, it is obviously anti-Semitism.

If this were the position adopted by just a single Jew, notwithstanding his enormous influence in the media world, one might dismiss it as some kind of unfortunate muddle-headedness. But action by Jews that promote anti-Semitism is remarkably common. For example, Ron Unz, a multi-millionaire California Jew with political ambitions recently published an extraordinary article in his own so-called Web-Zine, the Unz Review, in which he lends credence to the age-old anti-Semitic claim that Jews engage in ritual sacrifice of Christian babies, stating:

I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

and suggests that Jews pay little attention to the Torah, and may more often pray to the Devil than to God. In which connection he writes:

Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition.

To acknowledge the possibility that some Jews at some time and some place may well have engaged in the sacrificial murder of Christian babies, or that some religious Jews may pray to Satan is one thing. But to do so in a manner that would suggest to the uninformed reader the typical American Jew may well be a blood-thirsty, Devil-worshipping, Holocaust-faker is simply preposterous. However, it serves very effectively to make the the Unz Review comment section a magnet for anti-Semites and hence a site for the propagation of anti-Semitism.

The implication is that by promoting anti-Semitism, a component of the Jewish population seeks to maintain what is tantamount to a libel against the people among whom they live, specifically, the claim that Americans, Canadians, the people of Europe are all carriers of what Elie Wiesel called "the age-old mental illness of anti-Semitism."

The consequences of such behavior are clear. First, to encourage Jewish paranoia and hence to reinforce the Jewish tradition of racial separation and supremacism, while weakening the self-defensive reaction of the host population.

Toxic Feminism

By Heather E. Heying

Male lions can be monsters, murderous and focused. Toxic, if you will.

Given the opportunity, male lions will kill the kittens in a pride over which they have gained control. They commit infanticide, which brings the new mothers, freshly childless, back into estrous. The females are quickly impregnated. This, we can all agree, is disturbing behavior, and may make some people feel rather less pleased with lions.

Given the opportunity, the vast majority of modern human males would do no such thing.

Those who argue that men are inherently toxic are, ironically, making arguments that are biologically essentialist. And they are making them badly, at that.

Read more

Trump Putin Meeting: What Does the Media Want to Hide?

Is this what upset them?

Putin's statement during Helsinki press conference with Trump?

President Putin: "For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. " Source

Meantime, the deep state breaks cover:

Ex-CIA Chief Brennan: Intel Community may begin to "Withhold Vital Intelligence” From President Trump.

Fired FBI Director Comey: "vote for Democrats in midterm elections."

Trump responds:



And


Media-Ite: Trump Calls Media ‘Real Enemy of the People’ While Revealing ‘Second Meeting’ With Putin

Media-Ite: Matt Drudge Weighs in on Latest New Yorker Cover: The Left Has a ‘Fetish’ For Trump’s Death

Daily Caller: FBI Director Fingers The 'Most Significant' Spy Threat To The US, And He Isn't Talking About Russia

The Best One Hundred Words on the Trump–Putin Meeting

This morning, Craig Murray demolishes the hysterical media reaction to the Trump–Putin conversation in a couple of paragraphs:

The entire “liberal” media and political establishment of the Western world reveals its militarist, authoritarian soul today with the screaming and hysterical attacks on the very prospect of detente with Russia. Peace apparently is a terrible thing; a renewed arms race, with quite literally trillions of dollars pumped into the military industrial complex and hundreds of thousands dying in proxy wars, is apparently the “liberal” stance. Political memories are short, but just 15 years after Iraq was destroyed and the chain reaction sent most of the Arab world back to the dark ages, it is now “treason” to question the word of the Western intelligence agencies, which deliberately and knowingly produced a fabric of lies on Iraqi WMD to justify that destruction. It would be more rational for it to be treason for leaders to blindly accept the word of the intelligence services.

Read the rest of Murray's blog post: Detente Bad, Cold War Good

Sorosism: What Is It About?

What globalist billionaires like George Soros want, so Vox Pop explains, in a piece entitled the Defeat of Sorosism, is to destroy every nation state so that Soros and a handful of the world's richest people can safely pursue whatever lifestyle, and political or financial manipulation they want, wherever in the world they chose to live.

Thus, speaking of Alex, the son of George Soros:

... for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

The fraud at the bottom of the globalist scheme that George Soros promotes is thus clear. It is to destroy every race and national culture on earth for the benefit of the adherents of a religion and culture of fanatical racism.

Novichok on a Door Knob: An Official Conspiracy Theory

As promised, UK Ambassador Craig Murray has followed up his blog post on the Amesbury poisonings with an analysis of the Official Metropolitan Police/UK Government account of how Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley came to be poisoned with a deadly, as-developed-in-Russia, nerve agent, while rifling though garbage cans or gathering cigarette butts in a park in Salisbury, England.

The analysis confirms the faith that British authorities have in the capacity of the British public to swallow any lie provided it emanates from a sufficiently authoritative source, the Prime Minister, for example, or the Foreign Secretary and is then repeated endlessly with a multiplicity of trivial elaborations and distractions by the BBC and the commercial media.

Among other key points, Murray takes aim at the claim that the original "Russian" Novichok poisoning in Britain, namely that of the Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, was carried out by Russian agents specially trained to apply Novichok nerve agents to door knobs. Thus, Murray writes:

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?

A ludicrous theory indeed.

But read the whole piece: Craig Murray: Holes in the Official Skripal Story

Related:

CanSpeccy The Novichok File (17)

Trump: May Screwed Up on Brexit; Immigration is Destroying European Culture

Skripal Tripal, No. 39: Where the Skripals Crossed Paths With the "Amesbury Poisonings" Couple

Thus far, not much about the official account of the Skripal poisonings has made sense. Now, Rob Lane of the Blogmire Blog reveals a huge hole in the account of the affair as provided by the London Metropolitan police, the agency supposed, one might assume, to be investigating not obfuscating, what happened.

According to the Metropolitan police, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fed the ducks in the Avon Playground, where they were soon afterwards found near death due to what was claimed to be Novichok poisoning.

However, it now emerges that the Skripals went to a different park, the Queen Elizabeth Gardens, not the Avon Playground, to feed ducks after they had been poisoned, a fact confirmed by a report in the Sun newspaper published more than three weeks after the alleged poisonings.

I say "alleged poisonings," since if nothing much else about this tale bears scrutiny, it is only rational to question the central fact of the case, namely the reported poisoning of the now disappeared Skripals from whom we have heard nothing other than a video statement of questionable authenticity from the "recovered" Yulia Skripal.

What this new fact that Rob Lane has brought to light reveals is not only that the original published reports about the movement of the Skripals the day they were poisoned were false, but that immediately before their collapse, the Skripals had been to the Queen Elizabeth Gardens where Charlie Rowley and the now deceased Dawn Sturgess, of the "Amesbury Poisonings" are believed to have been poisoned.

In other words, the media have thus far managed to avoid mentioning what was very likely the critical location at which the paths of the poisoned Skripals, and the poisoned Amesbury couple crossed.

Make what you like of it, but based on their performance on the Novichok file thus far, I wouldn't trust the London Metropolitan Police to investigate the theft of a bicycle, let alone acts of murder leading to an international crisis.

Indeed, it is clear that the performance of the Met in this case is sad evidence of a catastrophic decline in the competence and integrity of British institutions. My late uncle, a man of both intelligence and integrity, was a CID Inspector with the London Met back in the 60's and there's no way I could see him having been involved in such a ridiculous farrago of nonsense as the Skripal investigation.

Related: 

Sputnik: UK Police Says Found Source of Deadly Substance Used in Amesbury Incident
ARD Mediathek: The Skripal Case: Berlin has until today no evidence from London

Translation via John_a at Craig Murray's blog:

Until today the German Federal Government has been waiting in vain: As RBB Radio has learned from government circles, until today the British Government has presented absolutely no evidence to the Federal Government that would prove that Russia is responsible for the poison attack on the double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The Federal Government reported this yesterday to the Parliamentary Control Committee of the German Federal Parliament in a closed session. Up till now it has simply been learned that the poison concerned was Novichok, a chemical weapon that was produced in the Soviet Union. Beyond this the British Government has so far presented absolutely no evidence. It could neither prove that the poison used came from Russia, nor that the Kremlin was responsible for the attack, it was reported.

 According to RBB information, the German intelligence services also have no information from their own sources that would permit such conclusions.

 After Yulia Skripal, her father Sergei has also now left the hospital. In recent days, Yulia Skripal made a brief statement before the cameras in Great Britain.[A SHORT EXCERPT IN RUSSIAN IS HEARD.] She said that she still found it hard to believe that she and her father were attacked in this way, and that their recovery had been slow and painful. The doctors in the hospital in Salisbury said that the Skripals’ recovery bordered on a miracle; it had really been assumed that they would not survive.

The Skripal case led to a dramatic deterioration in diplomatic relations between Russia and numerous western countries. After the British Government had declared that it was convinced that Russia was responsible for the poison attack on Skripal and his daughter, over 140 Russian diplomats were expelled from a total of 26 European countries, the USA and NATO, an event that was unique in its scale. Germany also participated, and expelled four Russian diplomats. In return, Russia expelled the same number of diplomats from the countries concerned.

NDR, WDR, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit had reported that in the 1990s a Russian scientist had offered a sample of Novichok to the [German] Federal Intelligence Service [BND]. Since then it is known that the nerve poison was exported from Russia, at least to the West. It is not clear where else it might possibly have found its way to.

The conduct of the British Government is increasingly putting the German Federal Government in a position where it is difficult to explain itself. Beyond the fact that the poison has been identified as Novichok, there is no trail that leads to Russia, let alone to the Kremlin. The decision to participate in the expulsion of Russian diplomats therefore appears more than questionable.

Farage: The Rebirth of the Nation State

Related:
Daily Telegraph: Is Theresa May guilty of treason? Plenty of readers think so. Politicians would be wise to listen up
Justin Raimondo: The three stages of Trump derangement syndrome
Daily Caller: PRESSURE IS BUILDING ON DEMOCRATS TO DRIVE OFF THE IMMIGRATION CLIFF

UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge

Craig Murray, who was booted from the diplomatic service for objecting to Britain's use of intelligence obtained by boiling people to death in an Uzbek gaol, summarizes on his blog the British Government's position on the recent fatal poisoning of Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, Wiltshire. Sturgess became ill following a visit with her "partner" Charlie Rowley to the scene of the Skripal poisonings in the nearby town of Salisbury. Rowley also became ill and remains under medical care:

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 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. Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals. The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow. 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 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. Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknb, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected. 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. Source

Almost (but not quite) every sentence in the above statement, says Murray, is "very obviously untrue" for reasons he promises to set forth tomorrow.

PostScript:

To anyone who has followed the Novichok Saga in any detail, the following comment on Murray's blog is riveting:

Jack: 

[T]here is still the case of the suspicious couple [in the Skripals poisoning case] on CCTV back in march, that very much resemble [latest poisoning victims] Charlie and Dawn!


I summarised [the photo evidence] here. Feel free to spread.

Yes, its a convincing match.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks

The Pope Is An Agent of the International Money Power Intent on the Destruction of the European Peoples: Catholic Bishop

It has long been evident to me that the Pope is an unChristian, globalist tool.

We now have confirmation of that from Catholic Bishop, Athanasias Schneider. Presumably, Pope Bergigolo is now trying to figure out a way of having Bishop Schneider burnt at the stake. Here is Bishop Schneider's take on the Pope's insidious role:

The Catholic church is being used as a pawn in a well-orchestrated plan to radically alter the Christian identity of European nations through mass migration, said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a bombshell interview last week. Schneider, who serves as auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, told the Italian daily Il Giornale that the current migrant crisis “represents a plan orchestrated and prepared for a long time by international powers to radically alter the Christian and national identity of the peoples of Europe.” To achieve their objectives, these powers abuse “the true concept of humanism and even the Christian commandment of charity,” Schneider said, exploiting the moral authority of the church for anti-Christian purposes. The powers in question “use the enormous moral potential of the church and their own structures to achieve their anti-Christian and anti-European goal more effectively,” he said. The interview was released in the midst of a series of initiatives by Pope Francis to bring about a “change in mindset” regarding immigration by focusing on the positive contributions of immigrants rather than the negative fallout from mass migration. Read more

Theresa May's Tangled Web Of Toxic Nerve Agent Deception

The ludicrous, evidence-free, assertion by Britain's Home Secretary, Sajid Javid (should his title not be Foreign Secretary?), that Britain's latest poisoning by an alleged nerve agent was due to careless Russians leaving toxic garbage where it was liable to be picked up by and poison some harmless English scavenger, has been nicely ridiculed by Rob Slane, of the Blogmire Blog:

In his statement to the House of Commons on 5th July, the British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, stated the following: “The use of chemical weapons anywhere is barbaric and inhumane. The decision taken by the Russian government to deploy these in Salisbury on March 4 was reckless and callous – there is no plausible alternative explanation to the events in March other than the Russian state was responsible. The eyes of the world are on Russia, not least because of the World Cup. It is now time the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on.”   Anyone with their wits about them will immediately notice the cognitive dissonance in Mr Javid’s statement. On the one hand, he states that the Russian government took a decision to deploy chemical weapons in Salisbury on 4th March, 2018. This is an emphatic declaration, and implies that the British Government possesses irrefutable evidence that this is so. Then in the next breath, he states that there is “no plausible alternative”. This is very much less than emphatic, and the word “plausible” implies that the British Government does not have irrefutable evidence to back up their claim.  This is not a subtle difference. It is the difference between suspecting something and knowing something. If you know something to be true, because you have the hard evidence to back it up, you don’t use equivocal phrases like “no plausible alternative”. You simply say, “here is the evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.” On the other hand, if you do not possess irrefutable evidence of something, as the weasel phrase “no plausible alternative” suggests, then you have no right to pronounce definitively on the matter, as Mr Javid felt fit to do. Still, he’s only the Home Secretary. You can’t expect him to understand such petty legal concepts.

Having thus disposed of the Home Secretary's imbecility, feigned or otherwise, Slane discusses how Mr. Sajid Javid might have pursued the facts of the case had he the slightest interest in doing so. Slane's proposed line of inquiry makes such excellent sense that I quote it in full, below:

As it happens, there are plenty of plausible alternatives, as Mr Javid no doubt knows only too well. If he’s interested, he can check out the one I have put forward here. Of course, regardless of whether my “plausible alternative” is correct or not, it is unlikely that Her Majesty’s Government would want investigations to follow the line of inquiry I advanced, since it might raise an awful lot of troublesome questions about the role of British Intelligence in the attempt to stop Donald Trump getting elected. Apparently, they want to keep that quiet. Which is why they slapped D-Notices on various aspects of Skripal 1.0 to hush all that up.

So Mr Javid states that Russia must explain itself, but in so doing unwittingly admits that the Government has no hard evidence of Russian state involvement. It merely is unable to imagine a “plausible alternative”, which either means that its members are somewhat lacking in imagination, or they don’t wish other “plausible alternatives” to be discussed (of course, it could even be both). Nevertheless, since he and the Government are the ones making the claim, I’d say that actually it is incumbent on them to explain themselves, not the ones they are accusing. That is how these things are supposed to work, is it not?

This being the case, I have a number of questions for them, which urgently need answering. Urgent, because they could prove vital to the investigation. However, before I come onto the questions, I must explain the nature of them, which may well come as something of a surprise, given the latest twist to this sorry tale in Amesbury. The surprise is that not one of the 10 questions relates to the Amesbury case. This might seem odd, but there is a very important reason for it.

At the moment, very few details have emerged about the Amesbury case, and so it is not exactly clear which questions could even be asked. True, the details that have emerged so far in the official narrative are about as coherent and plausible as those in the original case, one of which I have already debunked here. However, what Mr Javid sought to do, with a very clever sleight-of-hand to cover his case of cognitive dissonance, is to make definitive claims about Case 2, based on the assumption that Case 1 has somehow been proven. But of course it hasn’t. Not even remotely. In fact, there are a ton of questions about Case 1 still hanging in the air that have not been answered, and I really don’t think that we should let Mr Javid and Co. off the hook before they’ve given us the answers to them.

But in the spirit of decency, let’s make it extremely easy for them. Let’s not ask them any hard questions. Nothing like, “C’mon, tell us the names of the people wot did it,” for instance. No, let’s instead satisfy ourselves by asking them some remarkably simple questions that they – or at least the Metropolitan Police – must know the answers to if their narrative is correct, and for a very simple reason, as you will see. So here goes:

What were Mr Skripal’s and Yulia’s movements on the morning of 4th March?
Why were their phones switched off?

Did Mr Skripal see anyone or anything suspicious near his house that day?

According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be very agitated. Was this because he was feeling unwell?

According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Was this because he had an appointment to keep?
What did Mr Skripal do after he left Zizzis?

Can he confirm or deny that the couple seen on the CCTV camera in Market Walk, one of whom was carrying a large red bag, are him and Yulia?

Did either Sergei or Yulia have a large red bag with them that day?

What are his last memories before collapsing at the bench?

Is Mr Skripal prepared to make a public statement answering the above, and will members of the international media be free to ask him questions?

So why must they know the answers to these questions? Simple. Because all they have to do to get answers to them is ask Sergei Skripal. They know where he is, don’t they? They must have questioned him, haven’t they? And Mr Skripal must surely have been eager to answer them, since the answers he gives could prove vital in helping to find out who poisoned him and his daughter, mustn’t he?

Just pause there for a second and think about it. Here we are, a third of a year after Skripal 1.0, with both Mr Skripal and his daughter having recovered months ago, and we still don’t know the answers to these basic, vital, but extraordinarily easy-to-establish questions. Isn’t that amazing?

I could even make it easier for them by boiling it down into one question:

When will the world hear from Mr Skripal about the events and circumstances of 4th March 2018, from the time he awoke until 4pm that afternoon?

C’mon British Government. It really isn’t hard. Or at least it wouldn’t be if the case you’ve presented is true. Just ask Sergei. But in the continued absence of answers to these simple questions, it seems that there might well be no “plausible alternative” but to assume that your case simply does not stack up. Which is why the onus is on you, not those you accuse, to explain yourselves.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Novichok File 

Trump in Europe: the Reaction of the Intelligent Left

Craig Murray is an exceptionally bright person with sometimes very strange ideas. But when he gets things right, he gets them right with great clarity and precision of language. In a blog post today, Murray is at his best explaining the total bogosity of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, and the viciousness of those who sought to use that faked war crime as a pretext for bombing the Hell out Syria:

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.

Murray characterizes Trump's missile strike in Syria in reaction to "yet more lying claims by the UK government funded White Helmets and Syrian Observatory," as "foolish." That, however is about as mild a criticism as one could make, and reflects the reality that Trump's reaction to Britain's bogus claims of Syrian chemical weapons use was as bogus as the claim to which it responded.

 Indeed, Trump's rocket attack on alleged chemical weapons production facilities, caches, and research facilities in Syria was undoubtedly intended in mockery of America's warmongering Neocons, consisting as it did, of a  bunch of obsolete missiles fired at empty buildings and followed by a mocking reiteration of George Dubya Bush's ludicrous Iraq-war, "Mission Accomplished" claim.

What is to be seen in Murray's comments about Trump, are, I think, two things:

First, a rejection of the vicious, disgusting, and nihilistic behavior of the never-Trump Democrats and their European followers such as Sadiq Kahn, Mayor of London and the representative of Britain's settler Muslim immigrants.

Second, an acknowledgment that Trump may prove to be what he claims to be, namely, a champion of the common people, both of  America and Europe. As to that, the truth remains to be seen. But it must be remembered that the ship of state turns slowly, especially when, as in the US, it has been stacked with traitors and saboteurs determined to obstruct the present administration in every way possible.

In the US, however, the trend, is in the right direction:  unemployment is down, wages are rising, investment in US manufacturing is booming. And in Europe, Trump’s clearly hold's in contempt the Treason class, headed by the three M’s, May, Merkel and Micron, while he gives every encouragement to those in Eastern Europe, Italy and elsewhere who oppose the flooding of Europe with pseudo refugees of an alien race, religion and culture.