“Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus,” as Max Miller the Cheeky Chappie used to say. Everything I hear and see from Western media on the Skripal-to-Syria saga always evokes – after I’ve thought about the assertion for a minute or two – the exact same response from me.
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: the BBC yesterday said the clean up in Salisbury “could take until Christmas” because the nerve agent used to not kill the Skripals is so deadly. But later in the same bulletin – having alleged that “a deadly poison gas attack” had allegedly taken place in Douma, that deadly substance had only taken – and this is word for word from the Beeb’s bimbo Washington gal – “ten days during which, you know, the Russians could’ve been meddling with the evidence”. Um, like the British did before they gave a sample (already 19 days old) to the OPCW, perhaps? So Russian clean-ups are 27.5 times more efficient than ours, then. Hmm. Bit worrying.
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: I’ve been watching Sky, BBCNews, CNBC, CNN, France24 and Bloomberg over the last few days, and not one of them has mentioned the strategic oil issues at stake in relation to the Syrian conflict. So obviously (as all six stations insist) the only thing at stake in the missile strikes scenario is Assad’s evil behaviour, the support he’s getting from the eternally wicked Putin, and the need to establish real democracy in Syria. What, like there is in Saudi Arabia, right? We supply arms to the Saudis in obscenely large amounts, and they are one of the “allies” keen to dump Assad as quickly as possible. The Saudi Royal Family is less liberal and democratic than the Roman Empire during the Spartacus crisis.
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: Purely in passing, many Brits pass their days baffled by the degree of denialism among the British Establishment – and the soft line taken by our police and intelligence agencies – against the demands of Islamic clerics, the public displays of worship beyond Mosques by the Sons of Allah, and the presence of 15,000 Jihadists in Britain committing atrocities on a regular basis against the civilian population of Britain. Surely it must occur to them that, at some point, the Saudis have told the UK political class what a deleterious effect it would have on our arms sales were Britain to actually start taking action against such things?
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: two independent studies – three if you include the Swiss lab hired by Moscow – have confirmed that they could not positively identify the Salisbury nerve agent as Novichok. Yet last night on Sky, during a five minute report from the Skripal home, their reporter on the spot called the agent “Novichok” eleven times during the bulletin. I will go further: there is no proof that any specific nerve agent anywhere in the world is or has ever been called Novichok. The term is a generic one in Russian meaning “new stuff”. The purpose of its repetition as a word in the media acts solely as a spurious means of tying all Novichok to the Putin régime.
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: one of Britain’s most distinguished and respected journalists, Robert Fisk, is the only UK hack on the ground in Douma. He has over the last week sent back two dispatches, the first of which brilliantly summed up Western hypocrisy about its “aims” in Syria, while the second cast yet more doubt on the existence of any gas attack in Douma. Fisk’s reports from the scene are rightly full of doubts about Russian clean-ups, the White Helmets, pro-Assad commentators and the all-round farrago of incredibility surrounding government statements on all sides. Not a single mainstream Western media company has taken the slightest interest in either retailing his doubts or interviewing the bloke. As Fisk writes quite often for the Independent, I suspect it’s only a matter of time before Boris Johnson points out that the proprietor of the paper is Russian.
Nah ‘ere’s a funny fing, missus: the BBCNews channel is so busy spending every evening in its risible Beyond 100 Days slot suggesting that Trump’s administration is all over the place and full of contradictory statements. But I have yet to see a single intelligent, investigatory piece from the Beeb speculating on exactly why these contradictions occur. I am a 70 year old amateur living in the middle of European nowhere, but even I have been able to pick up feedback from serious US commentators suggesting that The Donald is being undermined by all kinds of shady people in his own White House. Note today, for example, how Trump repeated his reluctance to impose further sanctions on Moscow, even though the Alt State’s Nikki Haley told the UN that was exactly what the US would do. She didn’t have the President’s permission to say that, but she said it anyway. As I have posted on three separate occasions this year, there is clear evidence that Trump wants to fire McMasters, his hawkish Chief of Staff. So far, he has been unable to. Clearly, the BBC has no interest at all in this “angle”.
The BBC’s senior echelons work for the globalist Alt State, and the content staff are largely Blairite in attitude. Neither of them are that interested in the Truth: they work for the Establishment, which in turn works for the US State Department, the Tory Party, the Saudis, the anti-Trump US Alt State, EUNATO and Brussels.
At the moment – regardless of where you live – 95+% of the resistance to this loose alliance of might, greed and sociopathy takes place online. Once they’ve finished with Assad, they’ll be coming for the internet. In this process, they will be assisted by legislators from all Parties and tendencies whose feeble narcissism insists that they should have privileged protection from criticism.
There are times when some of us are not sure where to start. This is one of them.
But fear not: the Windrush scandal has come at a suitable moment to distract everyone’s attention. The media are covering it 24/7. I don’t wonder why; I just wonder why hardly anyone else seems to wonder why.
Have a good day.