Amesbury Incident Latest: Extradition


An anticipated anti-Russian development in the nerve agent (Novichok) attacks in Amesbury and Salisbury has now been made public. It is an extradition request to Moscow for the two Russians suspected of carrying out the attacks, with an unnamed security source saying that “the attack on the Skripals was ordered by the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service.” {1}

The facts which have probative value in this matter of such an extradition request – and in the claim that the GRU ordered the attack – have not been made public, and will not be made public. Instead, and yet again, we the people are expected to trust “police and security sources” who say that they have investigated the movements of the two Russians from their entry into Britain to their departure to Russia, and that the nerve agent
                  “used to attack the Skripals on 4 March was applied from a perfume bottle sprayed or smeared on to their front doorknob,” and that “the bottle was dropped somewhere in the city, where it was later picked up by Rowley, who gave it to Sturgess.” {1}

Yet this bland statement contradicts what one of the victims – Charlie Rowley – initially said following his recovery. He said that the perfume bottle was in a sealed box of a well-known perfume manufacturer and wrapped up, with one newspaper writing that his statement “may undermine the line of inquiry that the novichok that he and Sturgess came into contact with had been discarded by the attackers of the Skripals.” {2}

So now we the people are expected to believe that the two Russians suspects, after the using the bottle in the Salisbury attack, took the time and trouble to neatly box it in a perfume box and then sealed and wrapped the box and then just threw the box away.

        At first Rowley said he found the bottle behind some shops in Salisbury city centre and then later on – since his initial, clear, and quite detailed account of a sealed box casts doubt on the accusations against the Russian suspects made by police and security sources – he back-tracked and said he “couldn’t remember” where he found the sealed box and that his memory of events is “vague”. {3}

To muddy the waters still further – since the accusation that Rowley had found the bottle used in the Salisbury attack, which bottle was neatly wrapped up, is ludicrous – it has now been reported that “Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that another bottle of novichok may have been dumped by the culprits.” {3}

So we now have the “vague memory” story and also the “two bottle” theory. The first bottle – never found – was used in the first attack, and the second – apparently never used and neatly wrapped in a box – was just thrown away somewhere in Salisbury where Rowley found it.

       Confused by all the twists and turns? We the people are expected to be and hence expected to simply trust what our government and security sources say. For neither the government – nor, apparently, the security services – believe that we the people should see and hear, have access to, all the facts which have probative value in order to, like jurors in a criminal trial, consider for ourselves whether there is sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict.

In this matter, as in so many others, it has been decided by the government that it is “not in the public interest” for we the people to have access to all the facts which have probative value, with the added excuse here – as again, so often – of such access being “detrimental to the security of the country.”

So much for democracy, of open and honest government by the people for the people.

That the extradition request – with the inevitable refusal by Russia to extradite the suspects – will be used by the government and others for anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda purposes, as well demands for more sanctions against Russia, is also inevitable, revealing the real purpose behind such a request.








Amesbury Incident Update



Amesbury Incident Update
Hypocrisy, Politicians, And Probative Value


Hypocrisy And Politicians

As predicted by the sagacious – by those whose guides are reason, fairness, and evidence which has probative value – the death of the woman involved in the Amesbury incident has led to politicians and others to express hypocritical outrage. Thus the British Prime Minister said she was “appalled and shocked by the death.”

Why is such outrage hypocritical? Because there is a political agenda behind it and because it ignores the fact that on average, around 3 women a day are killed in Britain {1} while between 2009 and 2015, 936 women were killed by men they knew {2} and which number of murders is far more than those who in Britain lost their lives due to acts of terrorism during the same period.

Did the current Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers publicly state that they were “appalled and shocked” by the death of each of those women? Did they send their “thoughts and condolences” to the families of each victim? Did they state that their government was “committed to providing full support to the local community” as it dealt with each such tragedy? No of course not.

Did the local police involved in such murders, as is now the case with Amesbury incident, have a squad of over 100 detectives from outside their area assist them? No of course not.

Why not? Because such deaths did not serve the political agendas of the government of the day while the death of the woman in the Amesbury incident does serve the political agenda of the government of the day. To wit, their propaganda campaign against Russia and especially against Vladimir Putin.

Probative Value

As also predicted by the sagacious, the British Home Secretary – following the death of the woman involved in the Amesbury incident – propagandistically stated, without providing or citing any evidence, that “we know back in March that it was the Russians. We know it was a barbaric, inhuman act by the Russian state.”

We are thus entitled to ask obvious questions such as: “Where is the evidence for such accusations? Where is or was it published and made available to we the people?” Available to we the people – the supposed basis for their government – so that we may make our own, individual, and informed, opinion based on evidence which has probative value.

Until there is such publicly available evidence “we the people” are supposed to trust the politicians who make such accusations, and – when pressed on the matter of evidence (as they seldom if ever are by journalists) – are supposed to trust their vague statements about “intelligence” gathered by the security services “proving” such accusations, although such “intelligence” is never published at the time and when on the few occasions that it is (years later after its propaganda value is no longer relevant) it is often “redacted” and as in the case of purported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction often shown to be false and propagandistic.

Thus instead of treating “we the people” with respect, as intelligent beings, modern politicians of modern democracies condescendingly expect us to trust them, believe their propaganda, and ignore their utter hypocrisy.

For such politicians, the death of one women in one incident provides them with political opportunities, while the murder of thousands of other women – often in more barbaric circumstances – is not even a footnote in the history of modern British democracy.

Is such modern democracy still fit for purpose? Or does it, as we are inclined to believe, need reforming, so that in the words of one perspicacious commentator,

                  “leaders and politicians must have such personal character-revealing experience as qualifies them to lead and to govern, with that personal experience consisting of proven and years-long ‘front line’ service to their country and to their people such as in the armed forces or serving as a ‘first responder’ in such occupations as paramedic, a police officer, and in the Fire & Rescue service.” {3}

Three Wyrd Sisters
9th July 2018 ev

{1} The Guardian, One woman dead every three days, 14 December 2017.

{2} Helen Pidd, The Guardian, 7 December 2016.




The Amesbury Incident


The Amesbury Incident
More Unanswered Questions

The revelation that two – apparently ordinary – British citizens are critically ill as a result of contact with the same nerve agent (Novichok) that seriously affected a former Soviet double-agent and his daughter in nearby Salisbury raises serious and interesting questions that the mainstream British and overseas Media have so far failed to mention.

As in the case of the Salisbury incident there is no mention of the financial and work background of the person or persons involved.

For instance in the case of the double-agent living in Salisbury, did he (as some sources seem to indicate) have recent meetings with MI6 and other security services and if so was the information he passed to the security services about Russian criminal oligarchs or about Russian organized crime or about the government of Mr Putin?

As we noted in a previous article:

                  “The nerve gas used – Novichok – was produced in Soviet era Russia and given the chaos that resulted from, and continued for some time after, the demise of the Soviet Union it is possible that small quantities of it might have been obtained by “rogue operators” belonging to or affiliated with either organized Russian crime syndicates and/or corrupt Russian oligarchs. Second, that details of the activities of the former British spy over the past five and more years – for instance his possible association with organized Russian crime, or with exiled oligarchs, or even with various Intelligence services – are either not known, or if known to the British Intelligence services, have not been made public by them or by any member of the British government briefed by the British Intelligence services.” {1}

In the case of the apparently “ordinary” citizens, the obvious questions to ask are: what were they up to recently or in the past few years; how did the man involved managed to support himself and buy a new and expensive property when he apparently was not working; what recent trips had he recently taken – in Britain or abroad – in recent months and years and who did he meet; were the pair drug addicts who needed money to fuel their habit?

Instead of asking such rational questions – questions germane to any police inquiry involving a serious offence – about the background of the apparently “ordinary” citizens living in Amesbury, journalists and Media commentators are already diverting attention away from such obvious questions by making statements such as that “the most likely hypothesis is that this is leftover Novichok from the attack on the Skripals back in March. Perhaps this is some of the Novichok prepared for the attack and discarded: maybe somewhere like a park, a house, and maybe these two [accidentally] came across it.”

In addition, according to Dr Vil Sultanovich Mirzayano, a Russian scientist who was part of the team that developed the nerve agent, it could not have survived in the open given both the time between the Salisbury incident and the Amesbury incident and the weather conditions in that part of England. He also said that the new incident must have involved a new batch of the agent.

Thus the most obvious explanation is that those apparently “ordinary” citizens may (i) have been responsible for or in some way involved with the Salisbury incident, or (ii) that the man had some connection to the players involved in the Salisbury incident, whomsoever those players were employed by, be such employers a Russian criminal oligarch or a Russian organized crime syndicate.

For as with the double-agent involved with the Salisbury incident, those involved in the Amesbury incident may well have had some connection to a Russian criminal oligarch, or to a Russian organized crime syndicate, or had fallen foul of such people by passing information about such people to the security services, with it being such people who are the obvious suspects in both incidents and with it being standard procedure for the security services to usually deny any connection between victims or perpetrators of a crime and the intelligence services.

Yet again, as with the Salisbury incident, the British government pointed the finger at Russia and at Mr Putin accusing Russia “of using Britain as a dumping ground for poison,” with the Media more than willing to avoid asking obvious questions and more than willing to parrot whatever (anti-Putin) propaganda the government deigns to manufacture about the Amesbury incident. One part of which propaganda is undoubtedly comments such as “there was nothing in the couple’s background to suggest the pair had been targeted” and which comments the people are expected to take on trust since the evidence allegedly behind such a comment is not made public. Just like the alleged evidence about Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction” – a pretext for invasion and war – was never made public at the time.

We can expect, yet again, that most of the population will either believe such government propaganda or be indifferent to the ignoble machinations and the sheer hypocrisy of their governments, machinations obvious in the lack of probative evidence for governmental anti-Putin claims and the desire by governments to hide from public scrutiny the answers to the aforementioned obvious questions that the security services already have or will undoubtedly find.

That “the public” en masse do not seem to have the nous to ask – and demand answers from their governments to – obvious rational questions about both incidents reveals just how little we as a species have evolved in the past few centuries.

In addition, as we noted in another article, in relation to Russia:

                  “It might well be the most truly Western nation of all, with those now arraigned against it just lackeys of a materialistic America led by a Vulgarian who will, as described the former CIA chief John Brennan who resigned rather than take orders from a draft-dodger, take his “rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history” once the full extent of his “venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known.”

After all, who is the leader most reminiscent of the forthright men of Greece and Rome, of the European Renaissance? Vladimir Putin, law graduate, former military officer, and Judo expert, who brought order to Russia after the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union? Or the draft-dodging, vain, pompous, irrational, vulgarian with tinted false hair?” {2}

July 2018 ev
N.B. This article – published on the 4th July – has been and will be updated as and when new information becomes available. Last updated 6th July 2018 ev.





The Propaganda Campaign Against Russia Intensifies

O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role


The British Prime Minister Theresa May recently stated that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and his Russian backers must be held to account – with those responsible “brought to justice” – for an alleged attack using chemical weapons in Syria. Note the word alleged. For – as with the recent “nerve agent” attack in Salisbury, England – no verifiable, factual, publicly available evidence has been provided to substantiate the allegation. As so often, the citizens of Western governments are expected to trust their “democratically elected” leaders and the “secret intelligence” that such leaders state “proves” whatever claims or allegations those leaders – and the media – want their citizens to believe.

However, to place such rhetoric – such propagandistic demands for “vengeance” – into the necessary contemporary perspective: did the British government demand that the perpetrators of the August 2013 Rabaa massacre in Egypt – when an estimated two thousand civilians were killed – be “held to account” and brought to justice? No.

Did the British government demand that the perpetrators of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 – when hundreds if not thousands of civilians were killed – be “held to account” and brought to justice? No.

Did the British government demand that the perpetrators of the October 2015 US bombing of the Kunduz Trauma Centre in Afghanistan – operated by the charity Médecins Sans Frontières – in which at least 42 civilians were killed and over 30 were injured be “held to account” and brought to justice? No.

Did the British government demand that the American perpetrators who shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988 – resulting in the deaths of 290 people including 66 children – be “held to account” and brought to justice? No.

And so on, and so on.

Thus the sagacious among us – and especially those with an esoteric Aeonic insight acquired via practical Occult experience – will understand such recent rhetoric by the British government and others (such as The Vulgarian president of the United States) for what it really is: part of the on-going propaganda campaign by such governments and directed at Russia and Iran because both Russia and Iran support the current government of Syria.

For the incumbent British government, the Vulgarian president of the United States, and their allies Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity that currently occupies Palestine, not only detest and seek to destroy Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East, but also seek “regime change” in Russia and Iran in order that the Zionist entity and their ally, the United States, can dominate the Middle East, replacing the current government of Syria with an American satrap amenable to Zionist influence and control.

Is such British and American anti-Russian and anti-Syrian propaganda therefore a prelude to even more NATO (American inspired) air-strikes on government controlled areas of Syria? A prelude for more ‘Specials Forces’ – American and/or NATO – to be deployed to undertake even more covert operations in Syria? Almost certainly. Is such propaganda even part of a America led plan to invade Syria? Possibly. For such propaganda is remarkably similar to that used to justify the NATO invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, among the excuses was the fraud of Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction” while now among the excuses is the fraud of Syria using “chemical weapons.”

No doubt now as then Western mundanes will – in their majority – either believe such propaganda or be indifferent to the ignoble machinations and the sheer hypocrisy of their governments.

TWS Nexion
10th April 2018 ev



A Repeat Performance?

O9A Insight Role
O9A Insight Role


The political and media saga of Britain, most European countries, and America blaming Russia – on the basis of secret intelligence reports – for a recent incident in England involving nerve gas has similarities with the political and media saga the preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when “intelligence reports” and “intelligence dossiers” were cited as “proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and thus must be “dealt with”.

When years later it transpired – after the death tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq as a result of the invasion of Iraq – that such secret “intelligence reports” were incorrect, no politicians – such as Bush and Blair – were held to account or publicly admitted their mistakes.

In a recent statement, the Russians again asked for actual evidence and for the British government to cooperate with them in a joint investigation.

The political response by a functionary of the British government was:
               “Russia’s proposal for a joint, UK/Russian investigation into the Salisbury incident is perverse. It is a diversionary tactic, and yet more disinformation designed to evade the questions the Russian authorities must answer.”

Stripping away the political propaganda, the response amounts to:
               “Russia’s proposal for us to provide evidence about the Salisbury incident is perverse. Asking for actual evidence proving their culpability is a diversionary tactic because they are guilty, and the Russian authorities must accept their guilt.”

In addition, in a typical example of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi – of diverting attention away from the failure of the British government to provide probative facts – a statement by a person described in the media as a “leading chemical weapons expert” was hyped by both British politicians and the media. The person said that
               “if the Russians are as innocent as they say they are, they should allow [the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] to visit [Shikhany] as soon as possible.”

Thus, contrary to Western jurisprudence, the accused party are asked to prove their innocence while the prosecution are not obliged to provide probative facts to prove the guilt of the accused.

   That the matter of the Salisbury attack has caused the worst crisis in East-West relations since the Cold War was only to be expected, given the propaganda – and the fallacies – used by politicians and by the media in the West, and given that no actual evidence of Russian government complicity has been supplied. For such propaganda and fallacies, together with a reliance on secret intelligence reports and the almost complete absence of mainstream Western politicians and the mainstream Western media being unbiased and demanding actual evidence, hark back to the tactics used to try and justify the invasion of Iraq.

That the intelligentsia (with only a few exceptions) acquiesce in this, that a majority of the general public either do not care or are persuaded by such tactics and such propaganda, is evidence of just how little we as a species have changed – how little we have learned about ourselves and how so few apply logic – even after the fairly recent carnage of two world wars with the death of around 15 million people in the first war and some 50 million in the second.

Thus we can expect calls by Western politicians for more “sanctions against Russia” – which sanctions will cause suffering among the people – and much more anti-Russian rhetoric and propaganda, with there probably being vociferous calls by some politicians for Russia to be “dealt with” in military terms.

Meanwhile, the intelligence services will no doubt – at the request of politicians – be told to encourage dissent and “regime change” in Russia.

Yet were we to use reason and logic as a guide in the matter of Russia we might well conclude – given its past, its culture, its traditions, and its people, as well as its rational response to the recent media-made and British government supported Salisbury nerve gas incident – that it might well be the most truly Western nation of all, with those now arraigned against it just lackeys of a materialistic America led by a Vulgarian who will, as described the former CIA chief John Brennan who resigned rather than take orders from a draft-dodger {1}, take his “rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history” once the full extent of his “venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known.”

After all, who is the leader most reminiscent of the forthright men of Greece and Rome, of the European Renaissance? Vladimir Putin, law graduate, former military officer, and Judo expert, who brought order to Russia after the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. Or the draft-dodging, vain, pompous, irrational, vulgarian with tinted false hair?

TWS Nexion
April 129yf

{1} See the article The Vulgarian: Archetypal Homo Hubris.