Published On: Sun, Apr 8th, 2018

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion

Share This
Tags

“Novichok” has now joined the ranks of other variably-fantastical wonder-weapons; up there with jet engine fuel and home-cooked TATP. What these have in common is that their destructive capabilities are determined by what Government claim for them, rather than any facts based in reality.

Jet engine fuel can cause a type of high-rise super-office-fire which can make three New York skyscrapers collapse at a rate of freefall into their own footprint. Home-cooked TATP can emulate C-4 (plastic) explosives in blowing holes through train floors – not only downwards, but back up again making it appear as if bombs were actually placed in the chassis of the train.

It stands to reason that if the powers of these “weapons” are such that they perform exactly to suit an explanation, then their capability can be slid up or down a scale according to requirements. So, when the Skripals were on death’s door and bound to be rendered cabbages by their injuries, even if they did emerge out of their comas (or their sedation), then Novichok was a ruthless killer. But now that Yulia Skripal has been on the phone to Moscow in a guarded telephone conversation with her relation – cousin Viktoria – then Novichok is not so dangerous after all.

Indeed, we are straight-facedly told that if Novichok is discovered on the skin, then it can be washed off to mitigate its effects. Imagine the cockney police constable reading from his pocket book to give testimony at the trial: “Yes, your ‘onour,” says he, “it happears has if a residue ‘ad been transferred to the victim’s ‘and hafter contact with the ‘andle on the door to ‘is ‘ouse. On discovering the hoffending material, the victim saved ‘imself from the worst of the poisoning by returning inside to the kitchen sink to hablute”.

The Skripals could have washed their hands. Such is the claim of one Dan Kaszeta, writing in Politics.co.uk. This character, who has a lot of store set in him by the corporate-media who cite him, appears to have been dealt with in other parts of the internet so that the expertise and the authority that he declares for himself is shown to be illusory. The author isn’t particularly interested in whether or not he is discredited.

Kaszeta is but a small cog in a vast propaganda machine that is now cranking out another diversionary talking point so that the people who consume it are arrested in their thinking, and so that their thinking doesn’t develop so as to comprehend the incident as a hoax – which it is. Instead they are led back to debating the merits of Novichok as the poisoning agent in a case of attempted murder. This amounts to a shoring up of the official narrative in the face of evidence that disproves it (the Skripals survived); hence why the new talking point needs to be addressed very briefly – and the following will suffice: we are told that the Skripals suffered an assassination attempt, and that the devilishly cunning and efficiently lethal Russian State was responsible for it, and yet the assassins were so incompetent that they tried to deliver a poison in such a way that would make it redundant for its purpose.

Logic quite easily defeats the proposition of “Novichok lite” as a weapon; if it wasn’t up to the job, professional killers would not have used it. There wasn’t an attempted poisoning of the Skripals. There were no professional killers. The incident was a hoax. But it’s not for this article to go over the same old ground again; the reader must acquaint him or herself with the FBEL coverage thus far, if not already up to speed, and the article, Of PowerPoint presentations, chemical warfare exercises, and disarmed magic, is as good as any place to start (other articles in this series are listed at the foot of the page).

The latest news about the Skripals only serves to confirm the hoax, not least because it fulfils predictions made at FBEL based on a reading of the evidence which pointed to chicanery. We are learning today that the Skripals might (will – let us not kid ourselves) go to the USA on their release from hospital; the following is from the Mirror:

Poisoned former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia could be offered witness protection and handed new identities in the US after being released from hospital in Salisbury, it’s being reported.

(The Sun is reporting that they will receive new identities in the UK, but how likely is that now that the Skripals have been all over the newspapers for a month?)

In the FBEL article, Novichok… or fentanyl? No proof of a crime points to Skripal poisoning hoax, the author supposed that Yulia and Sergei Skripal would receive “’witness protection’ treatment”, because it was felt that they weren’t in Salisbury District Hospital, because they hadn’t been poisoned, but some explanation would be needed for what would become a necessary disappearance; i.e. “we should expect to hear, by and by, about the patients’ sad demise”. In other words, the author was expecting the Skripals to be pronounced dead, but at the same time living a new life with new identities far from Salisbury, and definitely far away from Moscow.

When news then came that Yulia Skripal was recovering, the author wrote the following in an update to the article, Of PowerPoint presentations, chemical warfare exercises, and disarmed magic:

Only a day after reports in the corporate-media that said she was very poorly and even brain damaged, and well connected alternative media was introducing the prospect of her certain demise, it now looks like Yulia Skripal is going to be resurrected – from an illness contracted by contact with a deadly nerve agent, believe it or not.

The author has no doubt that that this would be an enforced narrative change in reaction to the scale of the incredulity in the country.

The thing to look out for is this: will the Russians be allowed to have access to her while she is ill? – not while she is hospital, but while she is ill. We will also note how keen she is to remain in the UK.

The first thing to deal with is the idea of the resurrection of Yulia Skripal for the purposes of having a first-hand witness to the “poisoning” to try and solve a credibility problem. Undoubtedly, this would have put a wrench in the works regarding the way that the Skripals were due to disappear. So, not only would this have been forced – as mentioned – it must have been a desperate act. It has been argued in other places in alterative-media that the pressure came from Russia’s demands for consular access to Yulia Skripal, hence she had to make a miraculous recovery in order that contact could be denied from the horse’s mouth. However, the author suspects that one of the reasons that the Court of Protection was introduced early on into the scheme of things was so that eventually it could decide on the Skripals behalf (while “comatosed”) that the Russians could not visit them in hospital while they were ill. This would deal with the crucial issue of preventing Russian inspection of the supposedly poisoned Skripals.

The resurrection of Yulia Skripal ultimately means that, although we might not be treated to a press conference on her “release from hospital”, we should at least expect a statement in strong support of the British Government’s position.

Secondly, the intention behind asking the reader to look out for certain developments was to demonstrate that events were predictable, and in being so, proved our appraisal of the incident – but not only that. These were the details by which a few remaining questions could be answered – like, have the Skripals been complicit, or have they been hostages?

At the time of the writing of the article, the author was already supposing that the Skripals were not in Salisbury, but that Yulia, at least, might have be returned to be presented, in the hospital there, to a Russian delegation because of the UK’s obligation under the Vienna Consular treaty. If this had happened after Yulia had recovered, it would have meant that the Russians could not have verified that she had ever been ill. As it happens, this verification will never be possible.

Presumably, to avoid the negative connotations of denying consular access, and to appear to be pursuant to international treaty, the British Government evidently arranged to have Yulia call her cousin, Viktoria. That Yulia called Viktoria is reported as the fact of the matter – but it also appears apparent in the content of the exchange – Yulia announces her name in full (not necessary if Viktoria had called), Viktoria evidently finds out that Yulia has access to a phone, etc. That the conversation was taped on Viktoria’s side perhaps suggests that the Russians had set things up to do so should the eventuality transpire. But the initiative was clearly on the side of the British, with the Russians reacting, and if we think, dear reader, that Yulia could have somehow performed this act without the knowledge of the people who were guarding her, then we are severely misguided.

With the most recent news being as it is, the reader will agree that it looks very much like Yulia Skripal will not be going back to Russia after all. If one looks at the transcript of her phone conversation, she doesn’t seem to regret that her cousin cannot get involved with the “situation” in England, as she calls it. There is no talk of returning home; in fact, Skripal reports that things are ok and “solvable”. So, Yulia Skripal is, in effect, running away to the west; indeed, as mentioned above, the author suspects that the departure for her and her father into “witness protection” land has already occurred, and their destination, we now discover, may indeed be a few thousand miles further west than Salisbury.

Sometimes the answers are easy to find. The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>