The Skripal circus rumbles on, unpacks big tent in the UNSC chamber. Roll up! Roll up!
This week the British Government took its “Skripal poisoning” fantasy to the UN to ask the governments of other countries to sign up to it. The USA’s Nikki Haley, with her trademark barking nuttiness, supplied a thematic tone that was most appropriate; a cross between cuckoos and gangsters:
“If we don’t take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used,” said Haley. “They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council.”
Read that as a threat.
The British Spartan representing his class at the UN (because he sure doesn’t represent us Helots) was a fellow named Jonathan Allen. According to Anglo-globalist (UK/USA) corporate-media, he invited representatives from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to conduct an independent investigation of the incident – although the correct way to proceed under OPCW treaty appears to be for Britain to supply a sample of the offending material to Russia, which it won’t. Indeed, the UK blocked a Russian initiated UNSC statement calling for a joint investigation without the automatic Russia-blaming. “This was no common crime,” said Allen, “it was an unlawful use of force, a violation of … the United Nations charter, the basis of the international legal order.” This from the people who invaded Libya and Syria with their mercenary proxy armies.
And so we approach the second weekend after the “Skripal poisoning”, and while the UK Government is peddling fairy tales as fact at the UN, it still can’t get its story straight at home. This feature, which manifests in corporate-media reportage of information supplied to it by the authorities, is incredibly important for understanding the nature of the beast.
Old hands at FBEL (and its predecessor Luikkerland) have shared seven (or eight?) long years with the author watching the corporate-media constructing false reality for the purpose of “behaviour adjustment” in the name of social engineering, or “fake news” in the name of pushing Government agenda. This is never done as an accident, or as a result of incompetence, because it is always possible to discern conscious deliberateness. The corporate-media, although it appears to be adversarial along party political lines, is in fact a unified tool of the Government, and it is coordinated by Government – and there are five years’ worth of articles at FBEL cataloguing this phenomenon – newcomers don’t just have to take the author’s word for it.
As soon as the lock-step, wall-to-wall, and hysterical corporate-media reporting of a big incident starts, it is a sure fire sign of a false flag, or an event that Government wants to exploit – and, as has been stated many times at FBEL, the real chances of an exploitable event occurring are so very slim, that in reality, they have to be engineered. This is what happened with the Skripal incident.
An expression of coordinated corporate-media reality-building as part of a false flag operation is a failure to secure the exact details underneath the headline occurrence. It sounds counter intuitive; how does a coordinated effort produce chaos in the reporting? Please see a recent FBEL article for a brief discussion. The fact is, it is not until there is a trial or an enquiry that a final version is entered into the record books – and this may vary wildly from the initial storyline in order to deal with inconsistencies that arise during the execution of the operation. This management of narrative to overcome inconvenient detail also goes on as part of the operation. Recently FBEL covered how corporate-media had to accommodate an emerging fact about the colour of Yulia Skripal’s hair.
CCTV image showing a man with a blonde woman walking through an alley had to be demoted in significance because Yulia Skripal had very different colouration. There is no doubt that this image had been intended by operation directors to represent the Skripals; newly discovered images from corporate-media coverage confirm this. Below are three diagrams of the sort that the online newspapers like to use to show a timeline of events. There are from the Times (which refers to the time-stamp on the CCTV image in question), the Daily Mail, and from something called PressReader.
This blonde woman became extraneous, and there had been an effort to iron her out of the narrative – see the previous FBEL article – but evidently, certain people were not happy with results, and new corporate-media output suggests that the management regarding this aspect of the Skripal incident narrative is still on-going – and going to great lengths.
On the 15th March, the Daily Mail published information that was framed as being news out of a “Moscow-based news agency”. An unnamed source, supposedly a Russian in Britain, had been shown an image by Scotland Yard of two people that it wanted to identify. Apparently, the police thought that Russian expatriates in Britain might be able to put names to faces:
A source told the news agency: ‘The photo taken from the surveillance camera is not of the best quality. He is a man with dark hair with a blonde woman. They seem to be 35 to 40 years old.
‘They are on the street, they portray a couple in love. The faces are not clearly visible.
‘From the conversations of the staff of Scotland Yard, I realised that these people were next to Skripal in some places, and on the day of poisoning flew out of England.
‘The policemen have asked whether these people are familiar… for some reason, they believe that this couple is from Russia.’
From this we might presume that Scotland Yard is under the impression that all Russians know each other – even when it’s impossible to recognise a face. Digesting the activity using logic, it might be reasonable to suppose that Scotland Yard thinks that the mysterious couple are the sort of people who would be known to the sort of Russian that is being interrogated. But who is this type of Russian? It’s very interesting that this story made its way to what, in the UK at least, is an obscure Russian publication, with lots of out-loud police thinking in the detail, and ultimately just happened to get picked up by the Daily Mail – and the Sun too. This other of the UK’s two most popular papers published the story on the 14th March, and reported that the Russian agency in question is Rosbalt Today, and that the Russians apparoached by Scotland Yard are exiles living in London: “business figures”.
If one scrolls down this Sun article to a section entitled “what we know so far” (about the Skripal incident), there are a number of bullet points. There are two of great interest for our purposes. The first is:
CCTV footage emerged showing Skripal’s last journey before the chemical attack.
This is the only time that CCTV is mentioned in the list. It refers to a newly appearing story about Skripal’s car being filmed by CCTV in the early afternoon ahead of the meal at Zizzi’s. Granted, the Daily Mail has to admit that “Skripal’s face isn’t picked up by CCTV, but a man can be seen wearing what appears to be a light-coloured jacket over a white shirt”, so there’s no way of knowing that any CCTV does show Skripal’s last journey after all. More significantly, because this is the only mention of CCTV in the bullet point list, it means that are we no longer meant to know that the Skripals passed a CCTV camera at Snap Fitness 24/7, covering the walkway near the Zizzi restaurant, at 3.47pm on Sunday 4th March.
Instead, we are supposed to know that (another bullet point):
Russian exiles have now been asked by cops to help identify a mystery couple aged between 35 and 40 seen close to Skripal and his daughter before they collapsed.
Of course, this is a revisiting of the main story that is carried on the same page of the Sun. And so, we begin to get a sense that the people who would have been used to represent Sergei and Yulia in the corporate-media rendition of the Skripal poisoning fairy tale are being transformed (and thus massaged out of the public consciousness) into two people who might have something to do with the administering of the poison – or not, it doesn’t matter, because they are long gone in any case. This kind of magic could only be the work of the people overseeing and directing the management of the reality via the corporate-media, so how do we account for the fact that the data that supports the transitioning appears to come out of Russia?
There is vital information in another Sun article entitled “Hitman and her: Canoodling couple hunted by cops in connection with Russian nerve agent attack”:
Anxious exiles on Vladimir Putin’s hitlist have been shown a picture of them.
Russian exiles, in London, who are Putin’s enemies? It couldn’t be referring to the oligarchs? To the author, it begins to appear that anti-Putin Russians have been given a story to arrange to come out of Russia for the sake of establishing enough separation so that it appears independent of the conniving British intelligence agencies who dreamed it up.
This way, the two individuals in the Snap Fitness 24/7 CCTV image become associated with this couple of interest – and that is all that is needed to smooth the former out of anyone’s reckoning or remembrance. Note, that there is no attempt to create a concrete link between the CCTV couple and the “canoodling” pair – to do so would be too overt; it would press the significance of their being suspects too hard and make them harder to forget. It is unnecessary too, especially as the poisoning story has swung back from being connected to Skripal’s car (the agent smeared on the door handle), to the substance being delivered into the Skripal home (see below). In such cases, the mind of the football-and-soap-obsessed British corporate-media consumer is best manipulated by gentle association so that a resolution that only resembles a cure for the irritating inconvenient data can be presented to represent closure of the matter.
A similiar operation to this was when the authorities pulled a woman (alive) out of the Thames a week after “Andreea Cristea” had jumped in (during the Westminster Bridge so-called terror attack). Cristea’s life support was pulled on the very night that Trump sent those cruise missiles into Syria in April 2017. The story of her “death” was completely buried, because her story was supposed to have had a happy ending (such is the author’s reading of the corporate-media coverage).
The rescue of another woman from the Thames, very soon after the “attack” took place, received an undeserved amount of attention in order to offer apparent closure to the millions of Britons (most Britons) who don’t pay very close attention to anything other than Coronation Street and Match of the Day. It didn’t matter that the events were unrelated – and it never does. In the dim recesses of the mind of a Briton, there was a girl in the water, then a girl was rescued. There was a couple in Salisbury, then a couple got on a plane to Moscow. No need to think.
Increasingly, there would seem to be a distinct lack of concern [in Government and its media arm] about how Skripal-incident data clearly appears as if it is released for the purpose of shoring up the credibility of the narrative. Naturally, then, there is no fear that it should help people understand the real nature of any problem – as per what a government in a free country would be concerning itself with, especially in circumstances where people are anxious about their own safety. There is no such dialogue, because the Skripal incident is a false flag attack – not by Mossad, or by Khazarian Jews, or “the Deep State” (which in the USA has become a means by which the drooling Cult of Trump excuse his own particular swamp-dwelling) or any other fanciful thing, but by the British Government (at FBEL this phrase is always used in its broadest term – it has nothing to do with the left/right paradigm). It could very well be a hoax (we’re still waiting for the proof of the crime; i.e. the “bodies”†), and there is more reason to appreciate the event as a hoax when it turns out that there is a big question mark about the actual existence of Novichok, and also when we observe the decontamination efforts of the authorities that in actual fact appear to be theatre rather than a serious application of hazardous material defences to a life-threatening scenario.
And speaking of defence in the face of danger of death:
Roll up! Roll Up! Are you worried about being poisoned in the aftermath of a Novichok poisoning? Concerned that an army decontamination unit didn’t think about cordoning off a potentially infected area until a week after the incident? Frustrated that the Government doesn’t give you any real information? Well, now you can pay for news about the latest developments in the Skripal incident with Telegraph premium [if you don’t pay, which FBEL doesn’t, then all you can read is as follows]:
The nerve agent that poisoned the Russian spy Sergei Skripal was planted in his daughter’s suitcase before she left Moscow, intelligence agencies now believe.
Senior sources have told the Telegraph that they are convinced the Novichok nerve agent was hidden in the luggage of Yulia Skripal, the double agent’s 33-year-old daughter.
They are working on the theory that the toxin was impregnated in an item of clothing or cosmetics or else in a gift that was opened in his house in Salisbury, meaning Miss Skripal was deliberately targeted to get at her father.
Theory? Isn’t the British Government supposed to know that the Skripals were poisoned by the Russian state? What was that big palaver at the UN in aid of, then?
† It appears that the Russians have not been given any information relating to Yulia Skripal, although they have asked for consular access to her.
The Russian Ambassador to the UK recently explained that…
The problem is that no one has seen any photos of Yulia Skripal and her father, no one knows in what condition they currently are and no one knows about any progress in the investigation. We just don’t seem to be getting answers to all these questions. The British have been avoiding this topic.
Today, it appears that Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, made a comment about the failure of the British to “show us the body”. The text of Lavrov’s speech can’t be found at the moment, but the following featured on Alexander Yakovenko’s twitter feed:
Lavrov: UK fails to inform Russia about the state of Yulia Skripal and the death of Nikolay Glushkov, despite obligation to do so.
There is a concept in Common Law that applies here; there is no murder if there is no body. The proof of the crime continues to be missing.
Additional: TASS, today: “Russia’s Investigative Committee has launched criminal cases over the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal.” Presumably there will be demands to have access to her as part of the investigation. No wonder that over promoted street sweep, Williamson, wants the Russians to shut up and go away.
