Rob Slane -- Man Steals Speech From Alleged Political Enemy

Man Steals Speech From Alleged Political Enemy

 December 15, 2019  Rob Slane

I was most amused to listen to Boris Johnson’s victory speech on Friday morning. I listened as he talked about a new dawn; about being humbled that people who had never voted for his party had put their trust in him; about getting support from all parts of the country; about the heavy responsibility this has brought; about not letting people down; about the need for change and the need to deliver change; about having been given a historic mandate; about uniting the country. And I wondered why I had this tremendous sense of deja vu.

But in case I had any doubt, the phrase “The People’s Government” confirmed it, it being not much more than a gnat’s whisker from the equally horrendous and sinister “The People’s Party” — a phrase uttered by that tragic character who heralded an old new dawn in 1997. And after going back and listening to that speech (the things I suffer for this blog!), I came to the following conclusion: De Pfeffel’s piffle was cut from exactly the same cloth as that tragic Blair character — in some places almost word for word.

I’ll leave readers to watch both speeches heaps of drivel (below), which are uncannily similar, except perhaps for the style. Blair was of course very slick at polishing his particular turd, whilst Johnson prefers to polish it in the style of the fop-haired buffoon he has created for himself. And why not, since this circus act has somehow propelled him to the top?

I’ll also leave readers to work out why these speeches by two alleged political enemies are so similar, but here’s a bit of a clue:

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

European Leaders React to the Death of the INF Treaty By Perfecting Their Ostrich Impressions

European Leaders React to the Death of the INF Treaty By Perfecting Their Ostrich Impressions

 February 13, 2019  Rob Slane

I ’m old enough to remember the excitement that most of the world felt when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles — better known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It was one of those epoch defining moments, with two seemingly implacable enemies, having stared each other down across the so-called Iron Curtain, and having engaged in a costly and potentially disastrous arms race, actually concluded that it was all rather pointless and certainly too dangerous to continue, and that a much better idea — and indeed a perfectly feasible one — was to sit down and come to an arrangement that benefited both sides, and made nuclear confrontation far less likely.

The result was a treaty, signed by the leaders of both countries in 1987, which eliminated missiles with a range of 500-5,500km, fired from land-based launchers. The purpose of this treaty was to guarantee (as much as such guarantees are possible) the security of Europe, which until that point had become a focal point of possible nuclear confrontation between the two sides, with American BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missiles based in Great Britain, West Germany, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherland, and Soviet SS-20s missiles based in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, as well as on the territory of Russia.

Yet here we are, just 30-odd years later, and that treaty has now vanished in a puff of smoke. But the truly astonishing thing about this is not so much that it is now dead. Nor is it that we have headed back to the situation that existed prior to 1987, only this time even worse because — in my view — the United States is under the control of deranged neoconservatives (nothing conservative about them by the way) who are quite incapable imagining a world in which the US does not have full spectrum dominance, and who certainly don’t possess any of the kind of rational thinking and political savvy that the Reagan administration possessed. No, the thing that really staggers me is the reaction of European leaders and the European media to an event that in one foul swoop threatens to shatter the security the continent has enjoyed as a nuclear-free zone for nearly a third of a century. What reaction? Crickets and tumbleweed.

I’ll comment on that more in a moment, but let me first say something about why this treaty is now dead.

According to Washington, the participation of the United States in the Treaty has been suspended because Russia has allegedly breached its terms with the development of a particular missile — the 9M729 — which they say has a range in excess of the 500km maximum permitted by the treaty. For its part, Moscow has refuted the accusation — even going so far as to invite Mike Pompeo to a public exhibition of the missile to see for himself — but has itself accused the US itself of breaching the Treatyby the placement of the Aegis Ashore missile-defence system, along with Mk-41 Vertical Launching Systems, on the territory of Romania and later this year Poland, which can be fitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles (with a range exceeding 500km). Who is right?

This is not actually a difficult question. One doesn’t even need to discuss the relative merits of these claims and counter-claims to come to the answer. The proof in the pudding is in the words of the US President, Donald Trump, who having accused Russia of violating the Treaty, then made the following comment:

“I hope we’re able to get everybody in a big, beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better…”

Remember, these comments were made just after the US had announced its suspension of the agreement, not before. In other words, after saying that the US was walking away from the Treaty, and after saying he was doing so because the other side was violating it, in the next breath he said he wanted to sit down and talk about it. What’s going on here?

The first thing to note, is that this is just another example of the way Trump does business. And when I say “does business”, I mean that everything he does in life, whether negotiating a New York property deal, or talking about a nuclear arms treaty, is done in the same way. Someone (I can’t remember where I read it) said that if you really want to understand Mr Trump, what you have to get about him is this: he simply doesn’t have a moral compass in the ordinary sense of right and wrong; no, his “moral” compass is entirely driven by a sense of winning and losing. Right for Mr Trump is winning. Wrong for Mr Trump is losing. That’s it.

And what he was clearly doing in accusing the Russians of violating the Treaty, then announcing the pullout, then talking about sitting down together in a “big, beautiful room”, was treating the issue of nuclear arms proliferation and security in the same way that he treats everything: just another “Art of the Deal”. Had he really wanted to sit down in a big, beautiful room to discuss the deal, I understand there are plenty such rooms in Washington and Moscow, or even in any number of other capitals around the world that this could have taken place. But no, in his usual crass and cack-handed way, he threw a grenade into the room, expecting that this would put him in a strong position to get what he really wanted.

Lest you be under the impression that this is just Mr Trump doing what Mr Trump does, well yes and no. He is merely an extreme version of what US Governments have been doing for years now, having given up doing diplomacy somewhere around the turn of the century. In Reagan’s day, the US had some extremely capable diplomats. Now they don’t have them because they don’t need them. Geopolitics is conducted by sanctions, threats, regime change, armed proxies and bombs.

But the second thing to note is his use of the word “everybody”. He’s not just talking about the US and Russia here. “Everybody” includes the Chinese. See, the problem the US had with the INF Treaty is that it was made between the only two countries who possessed the capability to produce vast quantities of those weapons at that time. But now of course China does have that capacity, and it does indeed have those weapons. And America — quite understandably from a geopolitical standpoint — doesn’t very much like that. My guess is that the Russians don’t particularly like it either. But instead of sitting down in a “big, beautiful room” with the Russians to try to work together to persuade the Chinese to enter into negotiations to include all three countries in the Treaty, like a bull in a china shop (pardon the pun), he charged into the “big, beautiful room” and wrecked it completely. Expecting to gain leverage over the Russians, instead he merely antagonised them to the point that they have announced their withdrawal from the Treaty, taking us back to the pre-1987 situation — only worse because the US no longer has any grown-ups left who are capable of thinking and acting rationally, and talking with others on equal terms.

But back to the Europeans. The INF Treaty is chiefly about preserving security in Europe. Pre-1987, the threat of confrontation on European territory was very real. This is why the whole of Europe breathed a collective sigh of relief when Reagan and Gorbachev signed their deal. Missiles which once faced each other across the divide, which could have destroyed Europe and Russia, were removed and destroyed. What’s not to be welcomed about that?

So you might have thought that now that the Treaty has been broken, by a US elite who don’t do diplomacy, and who are essentially playing a game of chicken, that European leaders and the European media would be up in arms. After all, it’s European, not American security which is essentially at stake here. But other than the odd sniffle here or there, there’s been no great outcry and no great outrage that Mr Trump and his neocon handlers have just undone in a moment the work that their wiser and better predecessors spent years negotiating.

Does it really need to be spelled out to European leaders and the supine European media what’s actually at stake here? Perhaps it does.

In case they missed it, the Russians have already stated that since they now consider the INF Treaty to be null and void, they will be developing a number of land-based missiles with a range significantly more than 500km, using their existing air and sea-launched missiles, Kalibr and Kinzhal. The Kalibr is a supersonic missile with a 990-pound warhead or nuclear payload, that can perform evasive mid-flight manoeuvres, instead of making a straight-line approach, and which can accelerate from a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 to Mach 3, descending to just 4.6 meters before hitting its target. The Kinzhal (dagger) is reckoned to be the world’s first hypersonic missile, capable — so it is said — of reaching speeds of Mach 10, and again able to perform evasive mid-air manoeuvres. Both missiles are said to have a strike range of up to 2,600km, which if you measure from Kaliningrad, basically covers the whole of Europe. Not one European country possesses anything that would have the remotest chance of stopping such fearsome weapons.

Although the Russian Government has stated that it will be developing these weapons with immediate effect, they have also said that they will only deploy them in the event that the US recommences stationing its own missiles on 500km+ missiles on European soil. The question is, are any European leaders so stupid that they will actually allow the US to station these weapons on their soil? Unfortunately, the recent history of these great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies — to quote the immortal words of Boris Johnson — rather suggests that there are.

Somehow, European leaders seem to be quite capable of believing that by hosting US missiles on their territory, they will increase their security. Yet, with missiles like the Kalibr and Kinzhal pointed back at them, all they will have succeeded in doing is painting whacking great crosshairs on their territory. And so once again, the spectre of nuclear catastrophe, hangs over Europe.

Is it possible to wake these people up? Is it possible to get through to those who blindly support the United States, even when its leadership shows that it cares for US geopolitical interests, and doesn’t give two hoots about European security as it plays its game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China? They don’t even have the excuse that this was done by a President whom they really like. They hate Trump. In which case, why are they not kicking up a terrific stink at the fact that this President, in his contemptible way of dealing with the nuclear question like he was haggling over a piece of land, has just returned us to a situation that we all celebrated being rid of more than three decades ago? Do they relish the idea of crosshairs on their territory? I’m not sure I have the answer to that. Any ideas?

---

PS. Before anyone comments that it’s a myth that Ostriches bury their heads in the sand, I know. But it’s a nice picture anyway.

What Would Sherlock Holmes Have Made of the Government’s Explanation of the Case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal?

What Would Sherlock Holmes Have Made of the Government’s Explanation of the Case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal?

 May 10, 2018  Rob Slane

In an article on 3^rd May, the Guardian journalist, Luke Harding, made the following rather amusing observation:

“Since the Skripals were found stricken on a park bench, Downing Street has stuck to one version of events. Theresa May says it is ‘highly likely’ Moscow carried out the attack using a Soviet-made nerve agent. Only the Kremlin had the motive to kill its former officer, she argues.”

The funny part, in case you didn’t spot it, was his claim that Downing Street has stuck to one version of events. He is of course correct, but what he doesn’t tell his readers is that this one version of events has had a plethora of sub-narratives attached to it, none of which have been able to remotely support the main thesis. Sticking to one version of events is reasonable only inasmuch as that version can be supported by facts. On the other hand, if the version of events being stuck to is not supported by the facts, or if the “facts” constantly change, or if the “facts” are contradictory, then sticking to it is a measure not of reasonableness, as Mr Harding implies, but rather of absurdity, folly and irrationality.

G. K. Chesterton once cautioned us against the propensity towards indefinite scepticism:

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

This is very true. But there is another, equally insidious, ditch which must be avoided. Let’s put it like this:

“Closing your mind too quickly can be worse than nothing. The object of closing the mind, as of closing the mouth, is to make sure that when you do, you have something solid inside.”

So is the narrative that Downing Street closed on so quickly after the incident solid? Does it stand up to scrutiny? Let’s see.

The Claim

Did You Really Drop Bombs on a Chemical Weapons Facility Mrs May?

Did You Really Drop Bombs on a Chemical Weapons Facility Mrs May?

April 26, 2018  Rob Slane

On April 14^th, shortly after the United Kingdom, United States and France bombed the sovereign country of Syria, on the basis of unproven allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Douma on 7^thApril, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May made the following comment in her official statement:

“Together we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. They were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research centre and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks. Hitting these targets with the force that we have deployed will significantly degrade the Syrian Regime’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons” [my emphasis].

It seemed to me when I heard these words – and the passage of time has not altered this impression – that Mrs May was admitting to one of two actions, either of which ought to see her removed from office.

Rob Slane -- The Lady and the Curiously Absent Suspect — Yet Another 20 Questions on the Skripal Case

The Lady and the Curiously Absent Suspect — Yet Another 20 Questions on the SkripalCase

 April 20, 2018  Rob Slane

Okay, so I’m up to 70 questions so far on this case (here, here and here), and here come another 20. Most of these are focused on Yulia Skripal, but there are also a number of questions at the end relating to the main character in the case, who so far seems to have been almost entirely forgotten. Let’s just call him or her or them “A. Suspect”, and note that so far he or she or they have been curiously conspicuous by their absence.

---

1. Both Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were admitted to Salisbury District Hospital (SDH) on 4^thMarch 2018 and were said to have been in a coma in the weeks that followed. During this time, what actions were taken by the Hospital Trust to inform their next of kin of their condition – particularly Mr Skripal’s 90-year-old mother (and of course Yulia’s grandmother) –, and to keep them updated throughout their illness?

2. According to reports on 28^th March, both Mr Skripal and his daughter were in a critical condition, and it was even suggested that the likelihood of either of them surviving was so remote that a judgement might be needed to make the “politically-sensitive decision over whether to maintain life support” for them. Yet just eight days later, on 5^th April, it emerged that Yulia Skripal had contacted her cousin, Viktoria, by telephone, and that she had repeatedly stressed that “everything is fine” and “everyone is fine”, including her father, who she said was “having a sleep”. This suggests that the two of them had recovered a good while before the phone call. On what dates did the two of them regain consciousness?

3. The telephone conversation, which was recorded by Viktoria and played on Russian television, was the first public information that both Yulia and her father were no longer in a “critical condition”. Why was this information not made public before her phone call was aired?

Here’s What Syrian Christian Leaders Think of their Western Saviours

 April 16, 2018  Rob Slane

It is a marvel to me how many Western Christians support the actions of their Governments as they “take action” against the Syrian Government. If they are aware at all of the huge Christian population in Syria (which many are not), they somehow believe that the Assad Government is the biggest threat to these Christians, and that their own Western Governments are the heroes of the hour, stepping in with their courageous stance and their pinpoint missiles to save the day.

Nothing could be further than the truth.

Their Governments have been covertly supporting groups they laughably call “moderate rebels”, known in the real world as “head-chopping, liver-eating, fanatical Islamist jihadists” who go under names such as Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham (this non-denial denial in the British Parliament a few days ago makes fascinating reading to those who are able to read between lines). They have been doing so for their own geopolitical gain, and they even leave whopping big clues for us to follow, such as the gushing and fawning treatment given to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of extremist, head-chopping Islamists in the world, in — well would you believe it — London, Paris and Washington over the past few weeks.

Rob Slane -- The Slowly Building Anger in the UK at the Government’s Handling of the Skripal Case

The Slowly Building Anger in the UK at theGovernment’s Handling of the Skripal Case

 April 7, 2018  Rob Slane

Top of Form

 

In her daily press conference on 5th April, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, mentioned a quiet resentment and fury that is building up amongst ordinary Russians over the way the Government of the United Kingdom has handled the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Strange though it may seem, I sense a similar feeling of anger and resentment building up here in the UK, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the official narrative has little or no connection with reality.

The anger and frustration is increasingly being displayed on comment boards underneath pieces reporting on the issue. And the feeling is not confined to those who would normally be labelled “conspiracy theorists”. It appears that even many of those who would not normally question official statements can see that something is seriously wrong with all this.

More specifically, from whence comes this feeling? Here are just 20 of the many reasons for this growing anger:

1. It comes from being asked to believe frankly outlandish claims – such as the one that is central to the whole incident, that the Skripals, who are very much alive and well, were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent with a toxicity 5-8 times that of VX.

2. It comes from the way that our Government recklessly accused another country – a nuclear-armed country at that – of committing a crime before the investigation into the incident had established the most basic of facts.

3. It comes from the fact that the UK Government has prejudiced and politicised the investigation with their claims before facts, their verdict without evidence, their sentence without proof.

4. It comes from the fact that the UK Government refused to go through the internationally established protocols for cases such as these. For instance, it only wrote to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on 14th March — the same day that Theresa May stood up in the House of Commons and formally accused the Russian Government of culpability.

5. It comes from the fact that the British Government, which repeatedly speaks about what it calls “British Values”, discarded some of the most basic legal concepts that have formed a part of real “British Values” for centuries, such as due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

6. It comes from the way that the British Government has refused to allow those they have accused to see any of the supposed evidence against them, preferring instead to use spurious and circular nonsense such as the arsonist shouldn’t investigate his own fire.

7. It comes from the fact that the Government attempted to lead the public into believing that the Skripals were poisoned by a substance that must have come from Russia, because apparently only the Russians were capable of producing it – a claim that is demonstrably false.

8. It comes from knowing that Boris Johnson was quite prepared to lie to the public, and instead of facing up to his misdeeds like a man and resigning, he has instead behaved like the great supine, protoplasmic invertebrate jelly he is – to borrow his own phrase – slithering and twisting his way around his own actions by acting as if nothing has happened, and that anyone who raises questions about his fitness for office is working for the enemy.

9. It comes from the labelling of those who have questioned the increasingly preposterous claims as “useful idiots” or “Kremlin stooges” or even outright traitors, for even daring to ask for clarification on the most basic points.

10. It comes from the way that the media has marched lock-step in line with the Government, refusing to ask the most obvious and basic questions, such as the ones I set out here and here.

11. It comes from the curious way that events seem to “happen” only after other events appear to force them to “happen”, such as the announcement of Sergei Skripal’s miraculous recovery from being in a coma, which came a day after the leaked transcript of the telephone conversation between Yulia and Viktoria Skripal in which Yulia stated that he was well.

12. It comes from the way that attempts have been made to make “facts” fit the narrative, such as the theory, first touted more than three weeks after the incident, that the Skripals were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent at their front door – an explanation which looks to be contrived in order to explain the curious anomaly that Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was said to have become ill after visiting Mr Skripal’s house.

13. It comes from the fact that the Government and the media have refused to report in any meaningful way on the connection between Mr Skripal and Pablo Millier, his MI6 recruiter and fellow Salisbury resident, and on Mr Miller’s connection with Christopher Steele – author of the Trump Dossier. The connection may ultimately be irrelevant to the case, but it is surely of interest at present.

14. It comes from the illegal and frankly immoral way that the UK Government has repeatedly denied consular access to the Skripals, which it is obliged to give under Articles 36 and 37 of the 1963 Vienna Convention and Article 35 (1) of the 1965 Consular Convention.

15. It comes from the way that Viktoria Skripal, who is quite obviously keen to see her uncle and her cousin, has been denied a visa under some absurd pretence of her application not meeting UK immigration rules.

16. It comes from the way that the Skripals appear to be being denied consular access, denied access to their relatives, and – so far as I can work out – denied access to legal representation. In other words, it looks increasingly as if they are being denied the most basic of legal and familial rights, and Yulia’s comments in her conversation with her cousin on 5th April do not inspire any confidence that this is not the case.

17. It comes from the way that the existence of Mr Skripal’s pets was only mentioned by the media on 6th April, and this only after Maria Zakharova asked a pointed question about what had happened to them in her daily briefing of 5th April.

18. It comes from the fact that the condition of the pets – a cat and two guinea pigs – has been almost blithely reported in the media, despite the obvious truth that they died through neglect whilst Mr Skripal’s house was effectively in the care of the Metropolitan Police who are overseeing the investigation – did they not even go in and check!

19. It comes from the fact that despite culpability having been apportioned after a few days, it is clear that the investigation has still not established the most basic of facts, with no suspect being mentioned or hinted at, instead the public has been fed a steady diet of increasingly outlandish and spurious claims about the location of the poisoning – the bench, the restaurant, the car, the suitcase, the flowers, the door handle, the buckwheat.

20. But most of all, it comes simply from that feeling we are being taken for a ride, and are being treated like utter imbeciles by a Government that feels it can make extraordinary accusations and simply expect the public to “trust us”.
It pains me to say all that. But it is so. These are not the observations of some tin-foil hat wearing anti-Government anarchist. Rather, they are the sober reflections of a Burkean, small c conservative — one who firmly in free and responsible Government, in the rule of law, in due process, in innocent until proven guilty, and who hates anything like the whiff of anarchy in the air.

Yet my fear is that as more and more of this sordid affair comes to light, and as the bizarre and frankly reckless behaviour of the UK Government comes in for serious scrutiny, that quiet sense of anger which has been building up amongst a public that realises it has been repeatedly misled, is unlikely to go away.

---

My previous pieces on the Skripal Case:

30 Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

20 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

The Three Most Important Aspects of the Skripal Case so Far … and Where They Might be Pointing

Rob Slane --Boris Johnson’s Statements Analysed by Experts and Found to Contain Traces of the Ministry-Grade Swerve Agent, “Govichock”

Boris Johnson’s Statements Analysed by Experts and Found to Contain Traces of the Ministry-Grade Swerve Agent, “Govichock” 

 April 5, 2018 Rob Slane

Warning: This piece may contain traces of satire

---

Experts at the Department for Sifting Truth from Lies (DSTL) at Porkie Down in Wiltshire, have been analysing Boris Johnson’s statements made during an interview with Deutsche Welle on 20th March, to see whether they may contain any traces of truth. In answer to a question about how scientists were able to identify Russia as the source of the substance allegedly used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal, and whether the laboratory possesses samples, Mr Johnson replied:

“They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt. We have very little alternative but to take the action that we have taken.”

Social media users were quick to point out that his claims appear to be at odds with those subsequently made by Gary Aitkenhead, Chief Executive of Porton Down (not to be confused with Porkie Down), who said in an interview with Sky News that his laboratory had been unable to identify the origin of the substance.

Samples of Mr Johnson’s statement were sent for analysis, and according to initial reports coming from the Porkie Down facility, experts have been unable to discern any traces of truth, but believe that they may have found traces of a substance known as “Govichock” – the name of a secretive Government programme aimed at confusing the public by cramming their official narratives “chock” full of inconsistencies and obfuscations.

According to an anonymous source at the laboratory:

“Although we cannot be absolutely categorical about the source of the particular substance used by Mr Johnson, what we can confirm is that our tests so far have shown it to be a ‘Ministry-Grade Swerve Agent’ – so called because it is designed to swerve people away from the truth. Furthermore, we can also confirm that the substance is of the family of Swerve Agents known as Govichock, ‘of a type developed by Whitehall.’”

When asked whether Govichock could be manufactured by a non-state party, the source told us that this was unlikely, as generally speaking only Governments possess sufficient quantities of the main ingredient —  known as “sheer audacity” — along with the knowledge that they can get away with using it without any repercussions, both of which are needed in the production.

Rob Slane -- The Three Most Important Aspects of the Skripal Case so Far … and Where They Might be Pointing

The Three Most Important Aspects of the Skripal Case so Far … and Where They Might be Pointing 

 April 3, 2018 Rob Slane

Pointing00

The I have now asked a total of 50 questions around the Skripal case, which you can find here and here. Having gone back through these questions, as far as I can see only three have been answered by the release of public information or events that have transpired. These are:

• Are they (Sergei and Yulia Skripal) still alive?
• If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?
• Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals and D.S. Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?

On the first two points we are now told that Yulia Skripal’s condition has significantly improved to the point where she is said to be recovering well and talking. However, although this provides something of an answer to these questions, it also raises a number of others. Is she finally being allowed consular access? Is she being allowed to speak to her fiancé, her grandmother, or her cousin by telephone? Most importantly, how does her recovery comport with the claim that she was poisoned with a “military-grade nerve agent” with a toxicity around 5-8 times that of VX nerve agent?

On the other point, we do now have a definitive answer from none other than the Chief Executive of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, Gary Aitkenhead: No, Porton Down was not able to identify the substance as being produced or manufactured in Russia.

It is important that reasonable questions continue to be raised, as they not only help clarify the actual issues, but the answers — or lack thereof — are also a good barometer as to how the official narrative stacks up. As a keen observer of the case — especially since it took place just a few hundred yards from my home in Salisbury — I have to say that the official narrative of the British Government has not stood up to even the most cursory scrutiny from the outset. In fact, there are three crucial issues that serve to raise suspicions about it, and to my mind these issues are the most important aspects of the case so far:

1. The absurd speed at which the British Government reacted to the incident
2. The British Government’s ignoring of legal frameworks and protocols
3. The large number of discrepancies between events and the official narrative

Let’s just look at these in turn.

1. The absurd speed at which the British Government reacted to the incident

Rob Slane -- Mais 20 perguntas que os jornalistas deveriam fazer sobre o caso Skripal

Mais 20 perguntas que os jornalistas deveriam fazer sobre o caso Skripal

 27 de Março de 2018  Rob Slane

 

Tanto quanto saiba, nenhuma das perguntas que escrevi no meu artigo anterior - 30 perguntas que os jornalistas deveriam fazer sobre o caso Skripal  - foi respondida satisfatoriamente, pelo menos não não ocorreu no domínio público. No entanto, apesar dessas perguntas legítimas ainda não terem sido respondidas e, de muitos factos importantes sobre o caso ainda serem desconhecidos, esta conjuntura deu origem a uma grave crise internacional, com uma expulsão extraordinária de diplomatas russos em muitos países da União Europeia e, particularmente, nos Estados Unidos, no passado dia 26 de Março do corrente.

Chegou o momento de parar e pensar. Um homem e a sua filha foram envenenados na cidade de Salisbury, em 4 de Março. No entanto, apesar dos investigadores ainda não parecem saber como, quando ou onde é que essas pessoas foram envenenados, várias nações ocidentais usaram o incidente como pretexto para a expulsão coordenada de diplomatas a uma escala jamais testemunhada, nem mesmo durante o auge da Guerra Fria. Essas mesmas exclusões dos diplomatas são claramente anormais e muito perigosas.

No meu artigo anterior, salientei que não é minha intenção embrenhar-me nalgum tipo de teoria da conspiração neste blog. Acontece, simplesmente, que não tenho nenhuma teoria holística – da “conspiração” ou não - sobre quem efectuou esse ataque e continuo a manter a mente aberta. Mas visto que o Governo do meu país se precipitou a julgar, sem muitos dos factos deste caso estarem estabelecidos, e como esta ocorrência levou à maior deterioração das relações entre nações com armas nucleares, desde a Crise dos Mísseis de Cuba, parece-me que é mais importante do que nunca, continuar a fazer perguntas, na esperança de que lhes sejam dadas respostas.

E então quer estas indagações sejam ou não, significativas ou úteis, eis as 20 perguntas mais importantes que considero que os jornalistas deveriam estar fazer sobre este caso:

1. Será que a polícia já identificou algum suspeito ou suspeitos neste caso?

2. Em caso afirmativo, existe alguma prova que os ligue ao governo russo?

3. Se ainda não identificou, como é possível determinar a culpabilidade, como fez o Governo britânico?

4. Na sua declaração à Câmara dos Comuns, em 12 de Marçode 2018, a Primeira Ministra britânica, Theresa May, afirmou o seguinte:

 “Agora está claro que o Sr. Skripal e a filha foram envenenados por um agente neurotóxico de categoria militar, de um tipo desenvolvido pela Rússia. Faz parte de um grupo de agentes neurotóxicos conhecidos como "Novichok". Baseado na identificação positiva deste agente químico por peritos mundiais, no Laboratório de Ciência e Tecnologia de Defesa, em Porton Down ”[ destaque feito pelo autor].

No julgamento do Supremo Tribunal, em 22de Março, sobre a possibilidade de retirar amostras de sangue de Sergei e Yulia Skripal para exame pela Organização para a Proibição de Armas Químicas (OPAC/OPCW) - provas apresentadas por Porton Down ao tribunal (Secção 17) i) - foi declarado o seguinte:

“As amostras de sangue retiradas a Sergei Skripal e a Yulia Skripal foram analisadas e os resultados indicaram exposição a um agente neurotóxico ou a um composto relacionado. As amostras deram positivo para a presença de um agente neurotóxico da classe Novichok ou de um agente intimamente relacionado ”[destaque feito pelo autor].

Assim, a Primeira Ministra disse que Porton Down havia identificado positivamente a substância como sendo o agente neurotóxico Novichok. A declaração de Porton Down diz que os seus testes indicaram que era um agente Novichok ou um agente intimamente relacionado com ele. Será que estas duas declarações significam exactamente o mesmo?[destaque feito pelo autor].

5. Por que é que as frases “composto relacionado” e “agente intimamente relacionado” foram acrescentadas à declaração dada por Porton Down, e será que é uma indicação de que os cientistas não estavam 100% certos de que a substância era um agente nervoso “Novichok”?

6. Por que é que essas frases não foram incluídas na declaração da Primeira Ministra para a Câmara dos Comuns?

7. Por que motivo é que a Primeira Ministra optou usar a palavra “Novichok” no seu discurso, em vez  da palavra Foliant, que é o verdadeiro nome do programa iniciado pela União Soviética quando tentou desenvolver uma nova classe de armas químicas no país, nas décadas de 1970 e 1980?

8. Quando o Secretário dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Boris Johnson, numa entrevista à Deutsche Welle  foi questionado como é que os cientistas em Porton Down tinham descoberto tão rapidamente que o agente neurotóxico era da classe “Novichok” de armas químicas, foi-lhe igualmente perguntado se Porton Down possui amostras do mesmo. Eis como ele respondeu:

"Eles têm. E foram absolutamente categóricos e eu mesmo perguntei. Eu disse: "Tem a certeza?" E ele disse que não havia dúvida "[Ênfase feita pelo autor deste artigo)].

Se a declaração de Johnson está correcta e o Laboratório de Ciência e Tecnologia de Defesa (DSTL) em Porton Down, tem amostras de “Novichok” na sua posse, de onde é que elas vieram?

9. Essas amostras foram produzidas em Porton Down?

10. Há quanto tempo é que eles as tinham?

11. Por que é que o DSTL não registou a posse dessas substâncias na OPCW, visto que é legalmente obrigado a fazê-lo de acordo com a Convenção de Armas Químicas (CWC)?

12. Este reconhecimento feito pelo  snr. Johnson não indica que os agentes “Novichoks” podem ser produzidos em instalações de armas químicas avançadas, como foram feitas  de acordo com as  suposições do OPWC no Irão, em 2016?

13. Em caso afirmativo, como pode o Governo ter a certeza de que a substância utilizada para envenenar o Sr. Skripal e a sua filha foi fabricada ou produzida pela Rússia?

14. Na sua declaração à Câmara dos Comuns, na quarta-feira, 14 de Março, a Primeira Ministra britânica afirmou que só havia duas explicações plausíveis para o envenenamento do senhor Skripal e da sua filha:

“Ou foi um acto directo do Estado russo contra o nosso país, ou obviamente, o governo russo poderia ter perdido o controlo de um agente neurotóxico militar e permitido que ele caísse nas mãos de outros ”.

Além da verdadeira substância usada, haverá alguma evidência concreta que induziu o Governo a concluir que esses são os dois únicos cenários plausíveis?

15. Em 26 de Março, vários países expulsaram diplomatas russos numa resposta aparente ao incidente em Salisbury. No entanto, neste momento, a OPCW ainda não havia investigado o caso, nem analisado amostras de sangue. Por que razão é que a decisão claramente coordenada de expulsar diplomatas, foi tomada antes da conclusão da investigação da OPCW?

16. Será que essa atitude não colocou uma pressão enorme na OPCW para chegar à conclusão “certa”?

17. Considera-se que a investigação da OPCW sobre a substância utilizada demorará pelo menos três semanas, enquanto a pesquisa de Porton Down demorou menos de uma semana a analisá-la. O que explica esta diferença?

18. Será que a OPCW estará a usar as amostras de “Novichok” que Boris Johnson diz que são mantidas em Porton Down para comparar com as amostras de sangue do Sr. Skripal e da filha?

19. Se não for o caso, em que base é que essa comparação será feita, uma vez que a primeira síntese conhecida de um “Novichok” foi feita pelo Irão, em 2016?

20. Se a OPAQ/OPCW descobrir que a substância é realmente um “Novichok”, será prova suficiente para estabelecer quem realizou o ataque aos Skripal ou - visto que outros países têm, claramente, a capacidade de produzir tais substâncias - seriam necessárias mais provas? 

Rob Slane -- 20 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

20 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

 March 27, 2018  Rob Slane

To my knowledge, none of the questions I wrote in my previous piece – 30 questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case – has been answered satisfactorily, at least not in the public domain. Yet despite the fact that these legitimate questions have not yet been answered, and many important facts surrounding the case are still unknown, the case has given rise to a serious international crisis, with the extraordinary expulsion of Russian diplomats across many EU countries and particularly the United States on March 26th.

This is a moment to stop and pause. A man and his daughter were poisoned in the City of Salisbury on 4th March. Yet despite the fact that investigators do not yet appear to know how they were poisoned, when they were poisoned, or where they were poisoned, a number of Western nations have used the incident as a pretext for the co-ordinated expulsion of diplomats on a scale not witnessed even during the height of the Cold War. These are clearly very abnormal and very dangerous times.

I pointed out in my previous piece that it is not my intention to advance some sort of conspiracy theory on this blog. It remains the case that I simply don’t have any holistic theory — “conspiracy” or otherwise — for who carried this out, and I continue to retain an open mind. But since the Government of my country has rushed to judgement without many of the facts of the case being established, and since this has led to the biggest deterioration in relations between nuclear-armed nations since the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems to me that it is more important than ever to keep asking questions in the hope that answers will come.

And so, for what it’s worth, here are 20 more important questions that I think that journalists ought to be asking regarding this case:

---

1. Have the police yet identified any suspects in the case?

2. If so, is there any evidence connecting them to the Russian Government?

3. If not, how is it possible to determine culpability, as the British Government has done?

4. In her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May stated the following:

“It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down” [my emphasis added].

In the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the court (Section 17 i) stated the following:

“Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent” [my emphasis added].

So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing?

5. Why were the phrases “related compound” and “closely related agent” added to the statement given by Porton Down, and is this an indication that the scientists were not 100% sure that the substance was a “Novichok” nerve agent?

6. Why were these phrases left out of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons?

7. Why did the Prime Minister choose to use the word “Novichok” in her speech, rather than the word Foliant, which is the actual name of the programme initiated by the Soviet Union when attempting to develop a new class of chemical weapons in the 1970s and 1980s?

8. When asked in an interview with Deutsche Welle how scientists at Porton Down had found out so quickly that the nerve agent was of the “Novichok” class of chemical weapons, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was asked whether Porton Down possesses samples of it. Here is how he replied:

“They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt” [My emphasis].

If Mr Johnson’s statement is correct, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down has samples of “Novichok” in its possession, where did they come from?

9. Were they produced at Porton Down?

10. How long have they had them?

11. Why has the DSTL not registered possession of these substances with the OPCW, which it is legally obliged to do under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

12. Does this admission by Mr Johnson not indicate that “Novichoks” can be made in any advanced chemical weapons facility, as indeed they were under the auspices of the OPCW in Iran in 2016?

13. If so, how can the Government be sure that the substance used to poison Mr Skripal and his daughter was made in or produced by Russia?

14. In her statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday 14th March, the British Prime Minister stated that there were only two plausible explanations for poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter:

“Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

Other than the actual substance used, is there any hard evidence that led the Government to conclude these as being the only two plausible scenarios?

15. On March 26th, a number of countries expelled Russian diplomats in an apparent response to the incident in Salisbury. Yet at this time, the OPCW had not yet investigated the case, nor analysed blood samples. Why was the clearly co-ordinated decision to expel diplomats taken before the OPCW’s investigation had concluded?

16. Has this not put huge pressure on the OPCW to come up with “the right” conclusion?

17. It is reckoned that the OPCW’s investigation into the substance used will take at least three weeks to complete, whereas it took Porton Down less than a week to analyse it. What accounts for this difference?

18. Will the OPCW be using the samples of “Novichok” that Boris Johnson says are held at Porton Down to compare with the blood samples of Mr Skripal and his daughter?

19. If not, on what basis will this comparison be made, since the first known synthesis of a “Novichok” was made by Iran in 2016?

20. If the OPCW discovers that the substance is indeed a “Novichok”, will this be sufficient evidence with which to establish who carried out the attack on the Skripals or — given that other countries clearly have the capability to produce such substances — would more evidence be needed?

Dmitri Paplavov says:

March 30, 2018 at 11:16 am

Thanks for an insightful list of questions.

I live in Russia and one of the many things that distresses ordinary Russians is the evidence this case provides of massive intellectual decay in the West. Russians have long been aware that Westerners, in particularly in the US, to an increasing degree have lost basic abilities to do arithmetic, can no longer write a complete paragraph in their own English without errors in grammar and spelling, and have become gruesomely ignorant of geography and history. Those are dangerous trends for world peace.

But in this case we see the UK government proceeding with a case that indicates disdain for the intelligence and common sense of citizens. The UK government thesis boils down to a claim that the detection of a nerve agent, that may or may not be similar to an agent researched 30 years ago in the Soviet Union, is proof the Russian government attempted to kill someone in the UK, sufficient proof to engage in acts of war against Russia.

If the UK government has reason to believe the citizens of the UK are so massively stupid as to swallow that thesis, then the UK has far bigger problems than belligerence from Russia.

For that matter, if the leaders of the EU also believe their citizens would accept a thesis that in no way establishes any logical connections, let alone proof, then the EU is doomed. No collection of nation states can survive such toxic stupidity in today’s highly competitive world. The Chinese and the rising states of Asia will see to that.

By the way, those who believe that mistreatment of ambassadors, defaming a sovereign power or launching economic attacks are not acts of war should consider how precisely such acts have precipitated so many wars. Roosevelt, for example, famously achieved his objective of entering WWII by launching economic attacks against Japan. If war is what the UK government wants, then the citizens of the UK should consider what they shall have if their government achieves its objective.

Russian patience is not endless in the face of mistreatment of our diplomatic personnel, defamation of our state, and economic attacks on our people. For the first time in living memory, more and more ordinary Russians are calling for a military response to such attacks, and the war party in Russia has succeeded in bringing weapons of mass destruction to a greater readiness for use against the UK. How is that in the interests of the UK?

What worries Russians is that our turning the other cheek is not enough. As students of history we know very well that countries in the West do not go peacefully into the long decline of entropy through stupidity. They make their way into failed state status through a serious of violent tics, lashing out at neighbors and rivals with wars and assaults, often based on false pretexts. France famously lost Alsace and Lorraine by foolishly launching the war of 1870 against Prussia based on false pretexts. Does the UK really think they will today profit from a war with Russia? Perhaps so, but also as students of history we Russians know that wars are to be avoided, as even for the winners the process is always harsh.

As they say, a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day, so it could be that despite the phenomenal implausibility of the UK government’s thesis it is, indeed, against all odds, correct. We don’t know, but we can get closer to the truth by asking questions as you have done.

Zeroing in on the technical aspects of this case, for which answers are difficult to fabricate, is one method to get closer to what actually happened while reducing the influence of war-mongering propaganda. Your questions are spot on. Here are a few more questions an enterprising MP might want to ask Boris Johnson and Theresa May. They too might well be caught up in something they do not understand, and just might be interested in discovering the truth if, against all odds, it is contrary to what they now believe.

1. You have launched acts of war against Russia based on the claim that detection of a nerve agent that may be similar to agents researched in the Soviet Union 30 years ago is proof the Russian government today tried to kill one or more people living in the UK. What proof do you have the Russian government tried to kill Skripal, specifically what proof that is so compelling it justifies acts of war against Russia? Other than the detection of a chemical, do you have any proof at all that the Russian government tried to kill Skripal?

2. Have you considered the possibility of a military response by Russia? What are the possible military responses from Russia that your planning has considered? What are the possible military escalations should your actions against Russia bring the war party in Russia into power? Have you considered the effects on UK citizens in scenarios other than “if nuclear war breaks out we all shall be incinerated, but many of them will be as well”?

3. You say this nerve agent was “of a type developed by Russia.” By “Russia” do you mean the Soviet Union of 30 years ago or do you mean the Russian Federation of today? By “Russia” do you mean the country of Uzbekistan, where chemical weapons were researched and produced in the days of the Soviet Union? When you say “of a type developed by Russia” do you really mean, more accurately, “of a type developed in Uzbekistan”? What evidence do you have that the claimed molecule has anything to do with Russia or the Russian government, as opposed to Uzbekistan? Is the UK government aware that Russia and Uzbekistan are different countries, significantly more different than, say, France and Belgium? How has that awareness, if it exists, guided your implied claim that the country in which such weapons were researched and produced, Uzbekistan, could not possibly be involved in this matter, while a country in which no such weapons were researched and produced, the Russian Federation, was without fail the only party involved? How many criminal events within Uzbekistan have there been in recent decades involving military assets? Do you know?

4. What, specifically, do you mean by “developed”? Do you claim Russia was the first country to create this molecule, or do you claim that Russia was the first country to discuss the possibility of this molecule? For the record, which countries are known to the UK government as having, or as likely having, researched or produced molecules that are a) nerve agents of any type, or b) nerve agents that are in any way similar to this molecule? Is the number of countries more or less than, say, 20?

5. What, specifically, was the molecule detected? Please provide a structural diagram of the molecule, to erase all taint of lies told to date about what the UK government claims. No doubt Porton Down has a comprehensive bibliography of all industrial, academic, and military papers that mention this molecule or molecules that are similar to this molecule in structure or in action. Please provide a list of those papers. If the government’s thesis that the detection of this specific molecule proves an act of war by Russia, then it seems that list must be very short and will not indicate any work whatsoever in any other country.

6. What are the technical characteristics of the molecule that indicate it is of “a type developed by Russia” and not a type developed, researched or produced by Uzbekistan, by Iran, by the UK, by the US, by China, by North Korea, or by any other country? VX, Sarin and similar nerve agents are widely known throughout the world and have even been produced by amateurs, as in the Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway. What are the boundaries to your phrase “a type developed by Russia” that would distinguish such a type as this molecule from, say, “a type similar to VX” or “a type similar to Sarin”? Have any other countries developed, researched or produced any molecules similar to VX or similar to any other nerve agent known to Porton Down? How, exactly, is that lethal zoo of hundreds of weaponized molecules at Porton Down and in dozens of countries different from this particular “type” of molecule, and in such a profoundly different way that only Russia at the government level and no other country or group could have created this particular molecule?

7. Although you use the phrase “a type developed by Russia” you have also added the qualifier or “a closely related agent.” What, specifically, is the list of known agents that qualify as “closely related”? In which other countries have research, development or production of such “closely related” agents occurred? What is the bibliography of citations for industrial, academic and military publications that discuss the theory, research, development or production of such “closely related” agents?

8. You refer to this chemical as a “military grade” agent. What are the technical characteristics that make a nerve toxin “military grade” as opposed to any other “grade”? Do you use “military grade” as a synonym for “scary nerve toxin” such that any formulation of, say, VX or Sarin, you would call “military grade”? Or, by “military grade” do you mean some other characteristic, such as purity of the substance, concentration within a carrier fluid, or physical characteristics such as formulation as an aerosol or powder?

9. Given that there is no evidence at all that the substance known as Novichok was ever known to exist in anything other than laboratory research in Iran or, as claimed by the UK, at Porton Down, what technical basis is there for saying a given sample of Novichok is “military grade” as opposed to “terrorist grade” or “industrial grade” or “amateur grade”?

10. Did Skripal ever attempt to sell information or services related to intelligence activities or opposition research or military information of any kind, to any nation state or any organization of any kind, while he was living in the UK? If so, what did he do? How did he earn a living? Did Skripal in any way try to profit from his former status as a spy? Has Skripal ever discussed or communicated with anyone in the UK or in the UK government regarding chemical weapons, for example, nerve agents?

11. What is the physical evidence for the mechanism of dosing the victims?

12. Many cases of people with former Soviet connections have emerged where samples of “weapons grade” materials were offered for sale to government agencies, at times under the pretext of exposing a plot, and other times simply as intelligence for sale, and often as a fraud to pick up cash from intelligence services which are eager to pursue all leads. Is it possible Skripal was involved in a plan to sell samples of a “nerve agent” and that he was sloppy in his handling of such samples? Would not such sloppiness be more likely to cause the health effects seen, wildly spread out over geographic distance and time, than a deliberate effort to use a “military grade” weapon to kill?

13. No crime is credible without a credible motive. How does the UK government explain the motive of the Russian government in this matter, when all logic and self-interest provide a compelling counter-motive, that the Russian government could not possibly want to cause a public relations problem by killing Skripal in a highly exotic way, guaranteed to leave a trail miles long pointed at the Soviet Union, on the eve of the World Cup in Russia? What tangible evidence does the UK government have that the Russian government was compelled to act in this alleged way right now, as opposed to simply shooting Skripal the week after the World Cup finished?

Well… that’s a very long letter, but then we Russians have a tendency to write at length. I want to emphasize that in no way do I condone assassinations in foreign lands, nor do I in any way wish any ill to the UK or EU, to their governments or to their citizens. I strongly believe that peace is in everybody’s interest and that something has gone terribly wrong within government in a way that serves nobody’s interests. I offer these questions so that the strong minds and stalwart morals of people in the UK, beginning with good people like Boris Johnson and Theresa May, can consider these questions themselves and, perhaps, see from them that they are going to war based on a thesis that is false and which does not serve their own interests.

I could be wrong in my belief that the Russian government has nothing to do with this, of course, but only the hard path of answering necessary questions will lead to the true cause of this incident in Salisbury. Sweeping difficult questions under the rug will only allow the truly guilty to go free, while possibly precipitating a war with a country that did nothing wrong.

Best regards,

Dmitri

Reply

1. Rob Slane says:

   March 30, 2018 at 12:22 pm

   Hi Dmitri,

   This is great. Just great. I don’t think there is a word of what you have written with which I could disagree. I particularly agree with the sentiments of your opening paragraph, about the intellectual decay in the West. This is a huge grief to me, and the Skripal case merely highlights very, very starkly what the problem is.

   I have tried pointing out to people who should know better, how the Government has acted not only recklessly, but with a complete disregard for the “values” which once defined us — adherence to the rule of law, presumption of innocence, regard to due process etc. But it all falls on deaf ears. It’s as if many have simply lost the ability to think rationally, logically, and to rely on facts, and now rely only on emotion and so are hugely susceptible to propaganda.

   It’s actually part of a far, far bigger problem in the West, which is the complete and total loss of objective truth. You can see it in the movement to redefine the institution of marriage in a way that no previous society on earth ever tried. You can see it in the movement to override the biological fact of a person’s sex, as defined by their chromosomal make up. You see it in the rampant individualism where truth and reality is defined internally, and not objectively by what is.

   Actually, it’s worse than this though. It’s not just the loss of a sense of objective truth – its actually the loss of the idea that there even *can* be objective truth.

   But this rampant individualism has, ironically, now moved to produce a kind of hideous collectivism. If you object to same-sex marriage, for instance, you are an outcast. If you question the UK Government’s claims around the Skripal case, you are practically a traitor. The move towards subjectivism, rather than objective truth, has produced a groupthink of grotesque proportions, which those in power have moved to exploit.

   For me, one of the most important quotes of the 21st century so far was one uttered by Karl Rove, Chief of Staff in the George W. Bush administration. Here’s what he said:

   “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

   That’s basically it. After decades of Cultural Marxist ideas seeping into the collective consciousness of the West, the powers that be now feel confident in doing what they want, and how they want, essentially shaping their own reality. Only repentance and a return to objective truth will stop the rot.

   This is not me saying I know what happened to the Skripals. Like you, I keep open several possibilities. But it is my lament that Western civilisation has become such a disgusting, putrid mess, that many are now susceptible to propaganda on a level I doubt that the world has ever seen before.

   Best wishes,

   Rob