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.





Russophobia – An Aeonic Perspective

Order Of Nine Angles


Since the March 2018 attack in the English cathedral city of Salisbury – in which a particular nerve gas was used in an attempt to kill a former Russian military officer who was a British spy – is just a recent part of the ongoing propaganda and economic war waged by many Western governments against Russia, it is interesting to place that attack, and this “new Cold War” – with its punitive economic and financial sanctions against Russia and Russians – into an Aeonic perspective. Which perspective implies a dispassionate approach: of using reason, of being undistracted by personal emotions and by propaganda, and thence appreciating the forces behind, and thus the raison d’être for, this new Cold War.

In terms of reason, the reaction of the British Tory government to the attack – “highly likely Moscow/Putin was behind it,” with “punitive measures” against Russia demanded – has been predicable in its posturing, propaganda, and accusations, with few if any mainstream political commentators, and government officials briefed by the Intelligence services, publicly mentioning two obvious and important facts.

First, that 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.

Such a scenario – of dubious “rogue” dealings and a subsequent and new betrayal – is far more likely than that Moscow and/or Putin were behind that attack given the length of time since his betrayal of his motherland and the fact that the authorities had ample opportunities to “disappear him” or for him to have an “accident” or die of “natural causes” while he was incarcerated for years in a Russian prison.

             In terms of the new Cold War, the speculation that the attack was engineered by Moscow and/or by Putin provides the governments of the West with another propaganda opportunity, as did such recent speculations as the following: (a) that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election, and (b) the products of the Russian internet security firm Kaspersky contain “spyware” and should not be used, and (c) that Russia conducted a concerted hacking operation targeting the US energy grid, aviation systems, and other infrastructure, and (d) that Russia – given its annexation of Crimea – poses a direct military threat to the West with it thus being necessary for the West to impose punitive sanctions and deploy NATO troops and military resources in Eastern Europe.

That there is no evidential burden in support of such speculations, such accusations, is seldom mentioned, for to point this out would detract from the propaganda value of such accusations, with Russia consistently portrayed by Western governments and the Media as nefarious, aggressive, and a “threat” to “peace”, with no mainstream political commentators publicly mentioning the utter hypocrisy of modern Western governments.

A hypocrisy evident in what has become known as “the Ukraine crises” with Russian “aggression and interference” stridently condemned and Russia subject to punitive sanctions. Yet the nations of the modern West – and the US in particular – are free to invade countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq; free to interfere in countries such as Yemen; free to undertake extra-judicial killings by drones in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere; free to station troops in Niger, Djibouti, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. Did the United Nations impose sanctions on the US and Britain for their invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and for their continuing interference in Yemen through providing arms and assistance to the repressive, misogynist, undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia? No.

Which hypocrisy and propaganda bring us to an ‘Aeonic’ appreciation of what is behind the new Cold War.

              The appreciation begins with another example of the hypocrisy of modern Western governments: Iran. At the behest of the US government, punitive sanctions have been imposed on Iran since 1979 with the aim of undermining and removing the Islamic government of that country. That is, the US government and others were intent on interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country in order to effect “regime change”. One hypocritical excuse used for such interference was what the US government declared was “the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran.” Hypocritical, and propagandistic, because the US government (and other Western government) has not imposed and will not impose punitive sanctions on countries with a worst “human rights situation” than Iran, such as Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and of course the Zionist entity that occupies the West Bank and Gaza and other Palestinian lands; which entity encourages illicit settlements in the West Bank and the Golan heights, and can launch and has launched punitive military raids in the West Bank, Gaza, and other territories including, most recently, Sinai.

Since 2006, again at the behest of the US government, the sanctions – supported and enforced by all Western governments – became more severe because the US government demanded that Iran cease what it termed “prohibited and illicit nuclear activities.” In other words, the US government gets to decide who can and who cannot have or develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In practice this means that modern Western countries can have nuclear weapons as can other countries that they “approve of”, such as Pakistan, India, the Zionist entity that occupies Palestine, China, Britain, and France.

Experienced analysts working for the Security services of Western nations such as Britain and the US have long understood why both Iran and Russia have been and are the target of punitive sanctions and subject to concerted and hypocritical propaganda campaigns. In the case of Iran, it is because the US government and its allies – with their uncritical support of and arms trade with the Zionist entity that occupies Palestine – are opposed to Iranian influence in the Middle East and especially opposed to Iran acquiring any type of weapon, conventional or nuclear, that might threaten the Zionist entity. In the case of Russia, as with Iran, they want internal change – a change of government, “regime change” – so that (a) they can remove Russian influence from the Middle East (such as in Syria) and elsewhere, replacing it with their own influence, (b) can have a free hand in Eastern Europe, and (c) reduce or remove the risk of Russia – with its nuclear and chemical arsenals – being a threat to US hegemony. Which is also why the US government and its allies have “demonized” and are “demonising” North Korea and imposing punitive sanctions on that country, since a nuclear armed North Korea poses a threat to US hegemony in places such as South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

              It is no coincidence therefore that the current British and US governments are using the recent attack in England on a former Russian military officer as part of their on-going “demonizing Russia” and “demonizing Putin” propaganda campaigns.

March 2018 ev