Wednesday 27th of October 2021

your mission is to self-destroy...


By firing missiles on Syria with its French and British allies, the strange President Donald Trump has managed to force the Western powers to accept the end of their unilateral domination of the world. The insignificant result of this demonstration of force drags NATO back to reality. Without having made use of its weapons, Russia now succeeds the Soviet Union in the balance of world power.

Over the last few weeks, and for the first time in their history, the United States and Russia have mutually threatened one another with a World War. The totally disproportionate character of the crisis in terms of the subject of the dispute demonstrates that what is at stake here today no longer has any connection with what has been happening in the Greater Middle East since 2001, but exclusively with an attempt to maintain the current World Order.

After the gigantic massacre of millions of people over seventeen years, from Afghanistan to Libya, the manner in which about fifty people in East Ghouta (Syria) are said to have died seems almost ridiculous. And yet on 14 April, this was the pretext chosen by Washington, Paris and London to launch a three-party aerial attack.

Let’s avoid getting distracted by the circumstances, and get straight to the heart of the matter – the Western powers are attempting to maintain their domination over the rest of the world, while Russia and China are breaking free of it.

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, did not hesitate to tweet to Russia that he was going to fire missiles of a new generation on its soldiers in Syria. The Russian ambassador, Alexander Zasypkine, immediately responded that these missiles would be intercepted and the planes and ships that fired them would be destroyed. The Turkish Prime Minister, Binali Yıldırım, expressed his astonishment at this « street brawl » and called the participants to reason. All of the actors then began to back-pedal.

The naval group of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman left its base in Norfolk, apparently to take position facing Syria. It will take several weeks before it is operational. The question of the confrontation between the United States and Russia, in other words the Third World War, will then be raised again.

It goes without saying that the preparation of this naval unit and its 6,500 soldiers began well before the affair of the Ghouta which serves as a pretext for its deployment.

The question is therefore to understand whether, by firing a deluge of missiles on a few abandoned buildings, Washington and its allies have postponed the confrontation in order to occupy a more efficient position, or, on the contrary, have given up on direct warfare and are preparing for a new form of conflict.

The result of the bombing on 14 April is astonishing - 103 missiles are said to have been fired by the Allies. 71 of these are said to have been destroyed in flight by Syria. A decommissioned military laboratory was apparently destroyed, and the installations of two aerodromes were damaged. This deluge of fire allegedly wounded only three people and killed none. If Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May had intended to show their power, they in fact showed themselves to be powerless.

Seen from Damascus, the message was clear - Syria is in the process of freeing itself from the jihadists, but will not enjoy peace for all that, and will not be able to count on any help from the West for its reconstruction.

The Allies pretend that Syria kept stocks of chemical weapons, despite its membership of the Convention which prohibits them. They claim that they targeted only areas linked to these weapons. And yet, for example, they fired four missiles at the international commercial airport in Damascus, an exclusively civilian target. Happily, the Syrian Arab Army managed to intercept them all.

In total, the Syrian Arab Army, which was only in possession of S-125’s, S-200’s, Buk’s, Kvadrat’s and Osa’s, managed, single-handed, to shoot down two thirds of the Western projectiles. Finally, despite themselves, the Allies had just fought the first battle of their history in which they killed not one enemy. France, which tested its new naval Cruise missile for the first time in a combat situation, was unable to boast of a success to its potential clients.

Of course, the Allies limited themselves. They carefully avoided hitting Russian or Iranian targets, and these two states did not participate in the operation. Nonetheless, the Western armada no longer has the capacity to impose its will on middle powers as long as they are protected by Russia.

Everyone has understood that, as from now : 
- the United States and Russia – just as in earlier times the USA and the USSR – will refrain from any direct confrontation in order to avoid nuclear war ; 
- and that the middle powers allied with Russia will not be significantly damaged by the West. 
- The only military superiority possessed by Washington, London and Paris resides in their capacity to manipulate armed groups and use them as proxies.

By bringing France and the United Kingdom into the fray, President Trump has forced them to accept the reality they were refusing to see.

This grand show, then, was no more than a futile gesture. After a quarter of a century of unilateral domination by the West, its three main military powers have just been down-graded. The world has returned to a bipolar situation like that of the Cold War, although the new rules still need to be defined. The Third World War will have to wait.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

the bucking dark horse next door...

Last week, the Russian Defense Ministry said that two Israeli warplanes had carried out an attack on the Syrian T-4 airbase in Homs; Tel Aviv, however, preferred to keep silent about the alleged incident.

According to the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed intelligence officials and other sources briefed on the matter, the Israeli prime minister had received US President Donald Trump’s tacit consent to target Iranian air-defense system deployed at the Syrian Tiyas airfield. After their conversation, Netanyahu reportedly ordered an airstrike on the facility to curb Iranian forces from using new anti-aircraft battery against Israeli jets.

READ MORE: Israel Hints It Can Hit Iran's "Air Force" in Syria if It Retaliates for T-4

Following the alleged attack that claimed the lives of seven Iranian nationals, senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that the strikes wouldn’t “go unanswered.” Meanwhile, Sky News Arabia reported, citing an IDF official that Israel would retaliate if Iran decided to strike back for the incident at the T-4 airbase.


Read more:


Read also:

the absurd irrelevance of Q&A...

AUSTRALIAN QUESTION and answer sessions, otherwise compressed as Q&A on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, tend to provide the viewer an arid view about a country’s anaemic democracy. While the national broadcaster makes a fist of it garnering an audience equipped with half-decent questions, the same cannot be said of the panellists. Often, unless they stem from the ranks of science pedagogues and cosmologists, they are people who have come with their scripts tailored, moulded and shaped to dull repetition controlled by some celestial being or party apparatus. 

The formula for guests is generally familiar: the house-trained minister, who parrots rather than responds; the similarly domesticated opposition shadow minister or member of parliament, terrified at sounding too different; an international personality (a bonus having one) in Australia for marsupials and business; and some cultural figure (because if you sing, you obviously must have political ideas).

The international guest on Monday’s program was Kenneth Roth, a figure who looks more likely to be running a bank or a blue stock chip company rather than a human rights organisation. And there we have the first problem of the night, which might have drawn a useful question: Should human rights defenders be corporatised to this degree? Discuss.


Dont read more if you don't want tocry,be angry or pull your hair apart:


Was this a multiple choice question? If you have not read the article on the BIG PICTURE at top by Meyssan, then you know nothing about Syria, nor "democracy" nor about human rights...


On 14 April 2018 the US Representative to the UN, Nikki Haley declared that the “United States refuses to initiate dialogue and to enter into discussions with President Bashar al-Assad”.

Contradicting this assertion, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reveals that three high level meetings took place between the two States. However, the fourth meeting, scheduled in March, was cancelled by Syria on the grounds that it would serve no purpose so long as Washington did not reconceive its policy.


I don't think you knew this...

the CIA lies...

The CIA lies. The FBI lies. The USA have always tried to create situations that will force other countries into “defending their patch” or “submitting to the hegemony”. The aim is simple: world domination. The purpose is simple: money. The trick is complex and based on lies that are more sophisticated mantras than the Nazis propaganda in Germany, during the 1930s, but still as deadly. 

The Dollar is fascism in disguise. Fascism brings comfort to some people and misery to others. It has always been a question of proportions between the kings and "their" subjects. 
Democracy is supposed to do away with this concept, this is why the lies than maintain the Dollar are cleverly crafted to promote “democracy” while still maintaining the hierarchy of cash and power. This is why less than one per cent of people own more than half the wealth. Most of us, the 99 per cent, are in debt. Armies to defend "our freedoms” — freedoms that are no more than the freedom of the rich to tell us what to do, including die for “your country” — are used in this overreach.
In regard to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK, the CIA would not be stupid enough to mention him as a CIA operative or even as a “double agent”, would they? They would write their documentation so that everything points in the direction of the soviets, wouldn’t they? If you believe anything else, your a ...
So we are constantly at the mercy of deceit. 
Remember Bush’s “axis of evil”? Remember Iran’s “the US is the Great Satan”? These emotive bursts of language remind me of Jules Verne’s “Master of the World”'s last lines:
“Nonsense; this Robur was not the devil!”“Ah, well!” replied the old woman, “he was worthy of being so!”

The CIA lies, has lied and will lie...

Search ResultsCIA Director Mike Pompeo distorts Russia intelligence to help Trump ... 9, 2017 - On October 19, CIA Director Mike Pompeo took the stage at a prominent Washington think tank — and promptly told a lie. ... visit would have created: equating a conspiracy theory with the high-confidence judgment of the intelligence community,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden told me in an interview.James Clapper - Wikipedia Robert Clapper Jr. (born March 14, 1941) is a retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is the former Director of National Intelligence. A career intelligence officer, Clapper has held several key positions within the United States Intelligence Community. He served as director of the Defense ...‎Early life and education · ‎Military career · ‎Director of National ... · ‎In the mediaCentral Intelligence Agency - Wikipedia Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the United States federal government, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT). As one of the principal members of the U.S. ...News of the News: How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted the FBI ... 9, 2018 - Former CIA director John Brennan is having trouble keeping his Trump-Russia stories straight. On Meet the ... What seems more likely is that the former CIA director told the truth. .... Brennan's CIA spied on U.S. Senators, a fact he first lied about and then grudgingly admitted to Congress and apologized for.CIA LIES TO THE PUBLIC, EX-AGENT SAYS | CIA FOIA ( Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/17: CIA-RDP91- 00587R000200780002-5. LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER(KY) 13 October 1986 FI[E f)F,y (21A lies to the public, ex-agent says. By Cindy Rugeley Herald-Leader staff writer. The Central Intelligence Agency deliberately misinforms the American public to build ...Why Promote a Lying CIA Director? – LobeLog 11, 2018 - “Pompeo is playing politics with intelligence,” former CIA analyst and Obama national security aide Ned Price said at the time, “using these files in a ploy to bolster the case against Iran by reinvigorating the debate on its terrorist ties.” Regarding the inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the ...John Brennan, former CIA director, on working with 4 US presidents ... 15, 2017 - Former CIA Director John Brennan reveals what it takes to join the agency and how he rose through the ranks to tackle top-secret missions for multiple presidents ..... Brennan: No, I couldn't, and so she would be the one who would lie awake at night and I'm there snoring, so maybe it's just you get used to it.Ex-CIA chief John Brennan to Trump: 'America will triumph over you' 17, 2018 - The ex-CIA chief said of Trump, "You will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." ... Former CIA director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in 2016. ... McCabe, the president claimed, "knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!".


One reason it’s so easy to get an American administration, the mainstream media, and the American people to jump on an anti-Russian bandwagon is of course the legacy of the Soviet Union. To all the real crimes and shortcomings of that period the US regularly added many fictitious claims to agitate the American public against Moscow. That has not come to a halt. During a debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, candidate Ben Carson (now the head of the US Housing and Urban Development agency) allowed the following to pass his lips: “Joseph Stalin said if you want to bring America down, you have to undermine three things: Our spiritual life, our patriotism, and our morality.” This is a variation on many Stalinist “quotes” over the years designed to deprecate both the Soviet leader and any American who can be made to sound like him. The quote was quite false, but the debate moderators and the other candidates didn’t raise any question about its accuracy. Of course not.

Another feature of Stalinism that was routinely hammered into our heads was that of the “non-person” or “unperson” – the former well-known official or writer, for example, who fell out of favor with the Stalinist regime for something he said or did, and was thereafter doomed to a life of obscurity, if not worse. In his classic 1984 George Orwell speaks of a character who “was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed.” I was reminded of this by the recent sudden firing of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Matthew Lee, the courageous Associated Press reporter who has been challenging State Department propaganda for years, had this to say in an April 1 article:

Rex Tillerson has all but vanished from the State Department’s website as his unceremonious firing by tweet took effect over the weekend.

The “Secretary of State Tillerson” link at the top of the department’s homepage disappeared overnight Saturday and was replaced with a generic “Secretary of State” tab. When clicked, it leads to a page that informs visitors in a brief statement that Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan “became acting Secretary of State on April 1, 2018.” It shows a photo of Sullivan signing his appointment papers as deputy in June 2017 but offers no explanation for the change in leadership.

In addition to that change, links that had connected to Tillerson’s speeches, travels and other events now display those of Sullivan. The link to Tillerson’s biography as the 69th secretary of state briefly returned a “We’re sorry, that page can’t be found” message. After being notified of the message, the State Department restored the link and an archive page for Tillerson’s tenure was enabled.

The most repeated Cold War anti-Communist myth was of course Nikita Khrushchev’s much quoted – No, eternally quoted! – line: “We will bury you.” On November 20 1956 the New York Times had reported: “In commenting on coexistence last night Mr. Khrushchev said communism did not have to resort to war to defeat capitalism. “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side,” he said. “We will bury you.”

Obviously, it was not a military threat of any kind. But tell that to the countless individuals who have cited it as such forever.   So, as matters turned out, did communism, or call it socialism, bury capitalism? No. But not for the reason the capitalists would like to think – their superior socio-economic system. Capitalism remains the world’s pre-eminent system primarily because of military power combined with CIA covert actions. It’s that combination that irredeemably crippled socialist forces in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Guatemala, Haiti, Ecuador, the Congo, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Chile, Angola, Grenada, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Albania, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, etc., etc., etc.

We’ll never know what kind of societies would have resulted if these movements had been allowed to develop without US interference; which of course was the idea behind the interference.

Political assassination. Political propaganda.

In the Cold War struggles against the Soviets/Russians the United States has long had the upper hand when it comes to political propaganda. What do the Russkis know about sales campaigns, advertising, psychological manipulation of the public, bait-and-switch, and a host of other Madison Avenue innovations. Just look at what the American media and their Western partners have done with the poisoning of the two Russians, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, in the UK. How many in the West doubt Russia’s guilt?

Then consider the case of Hugo Chávez. When he died in 2013 I wrote the following: “[W]hen someone like Chávez dies at the young age of 58 I have to wonder about the circumstances. Unremitting cancer, intractable respiratory infections, massive heart attack, one after the other … It is well known that during the Cold War, the CIA worked diligently to develop substances that could kill without leaving a trace. I would like to see the Venezuelan government pursue every avenue of investigation in having an autopsy performed.” (None was performed apparently.)

Back in December 2011, Chávez, already under treatment for cancer, wondered out loud: “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” The Venezuelan president was speaking a day after Argentina’s leftist president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, announced she had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. This was after three other prominent leftist Latin America leaders had been diagnosed with cancer: Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff; Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo; and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

“Evo take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don’t know,” Chávez said, referring to Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, both leading leftists.

Chávez said he had received words of warning from Fidel Castro, himself the target of hundreds of failed and often bizarre CIA assassination plots. “Fidel always told me: ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.”  

When the new Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, suggested possible American involvement in Chávez’s death, the US State Department called the allegation “absurd” even though the United States had already played a key role in the short-lived overthrow of Chávez in 2002. I don’t know of any American mainstream media that has raised the possibility that Chávez was murdered.

I personally believe, without any proof to offer, (although no less than is offered re Russia’s guilt in the UK poisoning) that Hugo Chávez was indeed murdered by the United States. But unlike the UK case, I do have a motivation to offer: Given Chávez’s unremitting hostility towards American imperialism and the CIA’s record of more than 50 assassination attempts against such world political leaders, if his illness and death were NOT induced, the CIA was not doing its job. The world’s media, however, did its job by overwhelmingly ignoring such “conspiracy” talk, saving it for a more “appropriate” occasion, one involving their favorite bad guy, Russia.

If I could speak to British prime-minister Theresa May and her boorish foreign minister Boris Johnson I’d like to ask them: “What are you going to say when it turns out that it wasn’t Russia behind the Skripal poisonings?” Stay tuned.

Another of the many charming examples of Cold War anti-communism

Nostalgia is on the march in Brazil, a longing for a return to the military dictatorship of 1964-1985, during which nearly 500 people were killed by the authorities or simply disappeared. It was a time when the ruling generals used systemic brutality, including electric shocks, as well as psychological torture in their effort to cement power and ward off what they called “communism”. They also stole many of the very young children of their victims and gave them to their followers, whom the children then believed to be their parents.


Read more:


See also:

an angry shot...

the russian red line... русская линия...

Lavrov's optimism is probably also connected with the fact that the United States did not cross the "red line" that Russia had drawn prior to the recent missile attack on Syria. "They were informed about the red lines, including geographical ones, on the ground. The results show that they did not cross those lines." Russian FM Lavrov said.

See more at

sailing into a junk yard...

The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group left the east coast Naval Station Norfolk, VA on 11th April.

The aircraft carrier is accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy, the guided-missile destroyers USS Burke, Bulkeley, Forest Sherman and Farragut, and the destroyers USS Jason and The Sullivans. The strike group carries 6,500 sailors and Carrier Air Wing One.

Recent announcements about Russia’s hypersonic Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) missile system having made these vessels effectively obsolete, this means that the ships and their crews are essentially being sailed into a bloody scrapyard.

Even without the recent upgrading of the Kinzhal system, the experience of the British fleet in the Falklands conflict illustrates the vulnerability of warships to low-flying missiles. In addition to the sinking of the HMS Sheffield and Sir Galahad, virtually every British ship was hit by at least one of Argentinian’s French-made Exocet missiles – a weapons system which was already 20 years old at the time.

Reportedly the only thing that saved the UK force from obliteration was that the Argentinians had got their missile altimeter settings wrong. The Russians will not make the same sort of error!

These facts are of course known to the US military planners and – one would assume and hope, for it is duty to know – by Donald Trump. And yet the US fleet is now nearing the coast of Syria, where it will met up with American and other NATO warships already in position. Together, they will make one big flock of sitting ducks.

If the people pushing Trump manage to get him launch a new strike on Syria (and we must expect a new false flag attack) and if the massive increase in NATO firepower means that enough missiles get through to enough targets to kill Russians, then Putin really has no choice but to sink the US fleet.

No choice because, whatever the danger of doing so, failure to respond would signal Russian defeat and retreat in Syria, which would of course lead to a rapid escalation of military pressure against Lebanon and Iran, and mean that when the Empire then rolls on to strike Russia, her most reliable allies will already have gone and her ‘soft underbelly’ will be seriously exposed.

So Putin orders the destruction of the US fleet, and an hour later all that is left is debris and mangled corpses in some oil slicks – and some ‘great’ photos and video clips to illustrate Trump’s declaration of war on account of “Russia’s deadly sneak attack on a US humanitarian force”.

Sounds familiar? It should do. Because we’re not just thinking here of the USS Maine, the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin. The Washington habit of using sunken ships as the causus belli also of course included Pearl Harbor.

Just in case you need a reminder, here’s just one example of the many short videos out there on the truth about the Japanese attack on 7thDecember 1941 which explain how Roosevelt had advance intelligence of the planned attack, but decided not to pass it on to the anchored sitting duck fleet:

The more or less official excuse (the President’s guilt never having been formally acknowledged) is that to have alerted the fleet would also have tipped off the Japanese that their naval codes had already been broken. But the truth is of course that deliberately didn’t warn the fleet because he knew that the sacrifice would goad the American people into a war against Hitler to which he and those around and behind him were committed, but which the American people opposed.

The circumstances this time are of course somewhat different, not least that everyone with even a passing knowledge of the Russian missile capability already knows that 6,500 sailors are “on their way to Samara”.

Which makes Donald Trump either a criminally incompetent fool, a bad poker player or a wholly controlled puppet of the psychotic Anglo-Zionist elite. If he is one of the first two of these, then there is of course still a chance that he might respond to the disaster by blinking and retreating. In which case, the Beltway elite will use the human tragedy and his humiliation to remove him from office (not a bad consolation prize, from their point of view).

But if he is the third, then the ‘shock’ blitz on the US fleet will lead to the immediate declaration of World War Three.

Indeed, if things get that far (and we’re probably 48 hours and one White Helmets’ video away from it) then the only thing that realistically stands a chance of stopping the racist Anglo-Zionist psychopaths in their tracks is if the Russian attack and its result are such a devastating show of ‘shock and awe’ as to make it impossible for them to ignore a simultaneous public warning by Putin to Netanyahu that any further US hostile response will place Israel directly in the firing line as well.

That might JUST be enough to make the Neocons back off. If not, then World War Three it will be. It might not go nuclear straight away, but even while it is conventional EVERYTHING will change.

Dissident anti-war voices such as this will rapidly be silenced by blanket censorship and internment; your sons and daughters will be conscripted; your taxes will go through the roof – and you will have to live with the ever-present fear that, once China enters the war against Washington and its client states, the tide will run so fast against the ‘democratic allies’ that their ‘humanitarian missiles’ will end up with nuclear tips.

If that disturbs you (and it surely should) then all I ask is that you take the Pearl Harbor analogy and get busy spreading it on social media RIGHT NOW. Because once those young sailors and airmen have been sacrificed, the demand for a war of ‘revenge’ will be unstoppable. But if the warmongers realize that plenty of people have already understood the plan, it might just spook them into backing off.

In which case the fleet can do a few face-saving manoeuvres and then sail home again and we can look forward to a summer which may be warm, but not as uncomfortably hot as it could otherwise become!


Read more:


Read from top.

liars inc...

The Western powers claim that a “civil war” began in Syria in 2011. However, the US Congress adopted, and then President George W. Bush signed, a declaration of war against Syria and Lebanon, in 2003, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act [1].

After the vain attempt in 2004 by Secretary of State Colin Powell to transform the Arab League into a regional tribunal (the Tunis summit), Western aggression began with the assassination of Lebanese ex-Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, in 2005.

The US ambassador in Beïrut at that time, Jeffrey Feltman – who probably organised this crime himself – immediately accused Presidents Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud. An enquiry mission was hastily dispatched by the UNO, and then a pseudo-International Tribunal was set up by the Executives of the UNO and Lebanon, without ratification either by the General Assembly of the United Nations or by the Lebanese Parliament. From its very creation, it was able to proffer witness statements and convincing evidence. The two Presidents were outlawed from the international community while awaiting their imminent conviction, a number of generals were arrested by the UNO and imprisoned for years without even having been found guilty. And yet false witnesses were unmasked, the evidence lost its pertinence, and the accusation collapsed. The generals were freed with apologies. Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud once more became respectable personalities.

13 years later, Jeffrey Feltman is the number 2 of the United Nations, and the business at hand is the alleged chemical attack on the Ghouta. Here too, we are shown witness testimonies (the White Helmets) and supposedly convincing evidence (photos and videos). The main suspect is, as usual, President el-Assad. The accusation had been carefully prepared by various rumours since 2013. Without waiting for verification of the facts by the OPCW, the Western powers assumed the role of judge and hangman, blamed Syria, and bombed it.

Except for the fact that, this time, Russia has once again become a super-power, equal to the United States. So it was Russia that demanded the respect of international procedures and a visit by the OPCW to Damascus. It was also Russia that took to the Hague 17 eye-witnesses of the pseudo-chemical attack to attest to the manipulation by the White Helmets.

And how did the 17 nations of the Western Alliance who were present react? They refused to hear the witnesses and refused to confront them with the White Helmets. They published a brief communiqué denouncing the Russian “show.” [2]. Forgetting that they had already condemned and punished Syria, they stressed that this hearing encroached on the responsibility of the ongoing OPCW enquiry. They pointed out that the Director of the World Health Organisation had already confirmed the chemical attack, and that it would be rude to question his judgement. And of course, they called on Russia to respect the International Law of which they are in constant violation.

It so happens that the declaration by the WHO is in contravention of its prerogatives, that it is not expressed in the affirmative, but in the conditional, and that it is not based on reports by its employees, but on the sole declarations of the partner NGO’s which report these accusations… the White Helmets [3].

The West has been chanting « Cathargo est delenda! » (Carthage must be destroyed!) [4] for two thousand years, without anyone knowing what this Syrian counter of Tunisia was being blamed for. In the West, this sinister slogan has become a reflex.

Everywhere, popular wisdom has declared that « Might is Right ». This is the moral of the fables of the Panchatantra Indians, of the Greek Aesop, of the Frenchman Jean de La Fontaine and the Russian Ivan Krylov, but it was perhaps born of the antique Syrian sage Ahiqar.

Perhaps, since the farce of their failed bombing raid of 14 April, the Western powers are only « the best » in matters of falsehood.

Thierry Meyssan
Read more:

Read from top

cleaning up Syria of NATO mines and other weapons...

ZAAFARANA (Syria) (Sputnik) – Depots with weapons produced in NATO member-states as well as underground explosive production facilities are being found by members of the Russian Center for Syrian reconciliation and Syrian government troops in the territories liberated from militant groups, the center said on Monday in a statement.

According to the statement, the officers are also revealing underground tunnels that are equipped with medical complexes as well as detention facilities for civilians. Syrian sappers continue to de-mine settlements in the liberated areas.

“We are in the Zaafarana settlement in the province of Homs at an al-Nusra Front terror group [also known as Jabhat Fatah al Sham, outlawed in Russia] observation point. We can see here a large number of gas masks, weapons produced abroad, for example, TOW-2 anti-tank guided missiles. The facilities are very well-equipped,” the center’s representative Andrey Nekipelov said.


Russia, alongside Iran and Turkey, is a guarantor of the ceasefire regime in Syria. Moscow has also been assisting Damascus by supporting the struggle against the various terrorist groups and by providing humanitarian aid to residents of the crisis-torn country.


Read more:


Read from top.

her toilet-block was kept safe from the rooskies...

The prime minister praised the Armed Forces in her Christmas speech for keeping the UK safe from Russia, defeating Daesh and “sending a message” to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May hailed the British Armed Forces in her Christmas address, praising their work on a variety of tasks, including, among other things, cleaning up the mess after the Salisbury incident and keeping UK "waters and skies" free from "Russian intrusion".

"Time and again you have stood up to aggression and those who flout the rules-based international order. You should be incredibly proud of all that you do — just as the whole country is proud of you", Theresa May said in the address.

The prime minister praised the military for "playing a vital role in cleaning up after a sickening nerve agent attack on the streets of Salisbury", and for "protecting our waters and our skies from Russian intrusion and strengthening our allies in Eastern Europe", the Independent reports.


It remains unclear whether the Russian Armed Forces are aware they were supposed to intrude into British seas and skies, however.

She also praised the armed forces for "striking at terrorism as part of the global coalition against Daesh" in Syria.

Sticking to the usual narrative, Prime Minister May said the British Armed Forces sent a "message" to Syrian President Bashar Assad that Downing Street won't stand by "while chemical weapons are used". May did not elaborate on what exact actions by the British contingent in Syria she perceives as "sending the message" to Assad.

Read more:


Sending a message to Assad has become a tradition in the West... Hopefully, the West is not going to bomb Damascus at any time, but who knows if the secret strategy of the Donald is to remove the troops so they don't get hurt should bombs start to fall in a "message"... The idiocy of Madam May is even worse than that of Trump — and let's not mention mediocre Macron who cannot control his own pissoirs...



Read from top.

australia day — you're standing in it...

Ever since Dud and Pete put a price on “Integrity” in their Welsh music teacher sketch of the ‘60s, the word has had suspicious undertones. Rebuffed by the teacher for thinking he can be bought, the rich industrialist says “- Integrity! – that’s a valuable thing and I’m willing to pay for it!” For a little light relief in these dark days I’d recommend listening to this classic and timeless social comment.

It’s probably not just by chance that the “Integrity Initiative” was the title chosen to describe a program – or operation – that is the absolute antithesis of what it suggests. In fact the more that the activities of the organisation, and objectives of its overseer the Institute for Statecraft, are examined, the clearer this becomes; – the Initiative exists to spread disinformation about every action correctly perceived and acted upon by Russia.

But far worse than that, the focus of the “Statecraft” of Chris Donnelly’s Institute is in manipulating public perceptions so as to craft States suiting the interests of the NATO enterprise, and opposing the interests of Russia and her allies.

It seems as though the Integrity Initiative has been so successful in this manipulation – along with its horde of fellow agents and organisations – that it is not possible to interest people in this shock-horror show of the 21st century; they just don’t seem to get it!

Perhaps it’s not a true measure of the state of Australian media, but the lack of any reaction to a letter I had published this week in a regional daily paper – the “Border Mail” has rather stunned me. Over the years this rather independent newspaper has been prepared to publish similar dissenting opinion while all others stay silent, and at least generated local interest amongst ordinary folk who are not prejudiced by being “well-misinformed”.

(my letter, sadly behind a paywall, noted that true democracy depends on true information, as it is corrupted by disinformation; an issue with local relevance thanks to our Independent Federal MP Cathy McGowan – a woman who stands out for her personal integrity and dedication to representative democracy)

But “destroying democracy” failed to stir the swamp this time it seems, which is cause for great concern, and the need for this analysis. without labouring the issue, at least to the point of being tiresome, it’s necessary to spell out details of the most serious crimes of the Institute for Statecraft’s Initiative Strategy – ISIS – and of those in the UK and US state apparatus who have devised and commanded them.

While not forgetting that MH17 didn’t just fall out of the sky on the orders of one Ukrainian commander, or with the collaboration of the Ukie secret services alone, the connection of that atrocity to the IfS is barely proven, yet. Which leaves “Salisbury and Syria” as the areas where certifiable crimes have been committed – in contrast to simple ‘cyber-operations’ such as the targeting of Jeremy Corbyn, or false claims about Russian interference in European affairs.

Salisbury and Syria have in fact been identified already, not just as closely linked but as the key focal points of the Integrity Initiative AND the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This particular document from the last cache of hacked documents spells out all the details we need, and from the horse’s mouth – the Head of Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme at HMG’s Russia Unit, Andy Pryce, who sent this email to “engaged” partners:


Sunday 15/04/18 13.03pm

This e-mail focussed on the Russian disinformation campaigns surrounding the chemical attack in Douma, subsequent military action, the Salisbury incident and the subsequent investigation. It is not intended to cover Russian responses as a whole but deliberate distortions and obfuscation of the facts by the Russian state and its proxies.

Please use as background for your own work and only share it with trusted colleagues and partners.”


The “subsequent military action” Pryce refers to took place less than 24 hours earlier! Examining the activities of NATO officials and Intelligence agencies in the interregnum between the carefully timed White Helmets attack on Douma on April 6th and the joint missile strikes leads to more questions than I have already asked, as here.

Pryce goes on to detail “31 different disinformation narratives deployed by the Russian State on the bungled assassination attempt in Salisbury and the horrific chemical weapons attack in Douma.” He also concludes that: “The Russian State is claiming that there is a joint UK, US and French effort on information warfare from Salisbury to Syria.”

This is also a particularly interesting statement to make, as the conclusion that there was a linkage between the Salisbury Operation and Russia’s actions in Syria was not yet made – by the Russian State. It was only being suspected at that time, and a link claimed by myself a week later. From my close attention to the statements of UK officials, I actually became suspicious that they were cleverly avoiding making any connection between the two “Chemical Weapons” operations publicly, while using every dog whistle they had to make the connection in the public’s mind. Boris Johnson was I think the first to chuck “and in Syria” into one of his public utterances.

This was despite the constant stream of propaganda in the Western media about the impending humanitarian disaster for the people of Eastern Ghouta, accompanied by nightly White Helmets child rescues. Looking back also, it appears that there were other “chemical attacks” staged by the White Helmets, but never picked upon –as if waiting till the timing was just right in the UK. We shouldn’t overlook the time of the Russian Presidential election either – March 18th – as the FCO certainly didn’t.

Looking at the “timeline” of events since before “Operation Nina” (or was it “Iris”?) has become something of an obsession for many of us, because there are so many incomprehensible discrepancies, both in Salisbury and Syria; the time lapse between the Skripals’ admission to hospital and that of Det. Inspector Nick Bailey is certainly one. As Rob Slane has pointed out, Bailey seems to have had some indecision on which time he went to Salisbury Hospital, with a delay before any antidote might be administered of up to 48 hours.

What is more astounding is that Nick Bailey’s very own testimony, given in detail to Jane Corbin in the BBC Salisbury special, destroys any claim that he ever came into contact with a lethal nerve agent. Without the slightest apparent recognition of its meaning, Bailey described how he “remained conscious throughout the treatment” – which involved a variety of injections and drugs. Bailey does however appear to have been another innocent victim of “friendly fire”, like Yulia, accepting the lies told to him about both the cause of his condition and its treatment.

As before, in the end it comes down to “who knew” that they were involved in the most devious and dangerous campaign of disinformation and criminal provocations in history, and who simply acted as “useful idiots” or helpless victims of their own states’ propaganda? And who knows now, that the need to conceal their complicity and collusion in these dastardly deceptions may also necessitate some further extreme measures, including lethal operations?

But perhaps those who do know are worse than we imagine; perhaps they are willing combatants in this war to rescue the West’s collapsing empire and its towers of Babel? In the light of our new knowledge – that what were conspiracy “theories” are now conspiracy studies, every new move by the NATO camp comes under suspicion, while all previous actions must be reviewed.

For example I recollect how the Australian PM at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, turned up in London only three days after the 14th April missile strike on Syria, and was involved in Five Eyes discussions on cyber security. What then seemed meerly suspect now appears revelatory, as Turnbull’s remarks mirror those written only four days earlier by Andy Pryce:

Whether it is a chemical attack in Syria, the use of a nerve agent on British soil, or the expanding cyber attacks across the internet… these must be resisted, they must be protected, they must be identified,” Mr Turnbull told the meeting in London on Thursday morning.


UK Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia has also been trying to distort the truth of what happened in chemical weapons attacks in Salisbury and in Syria.


Now it appears that Australia’s favoured solidarity with the Five Eyes also extends to life after Brexit – a deal or no deal Brexit evidently planned for and welcomed by Liam Fox, the UK’s International Trade and Development Minister. Following the Brexit crisis in Parliament, Liam Fox had a special meeting with Australia’s new High Commissioner in London, George Brandis, with mutual reassurance that trade and political links between the UK and its former colony would survive and blossom.

Just as “Honorary Colonel” Chris Donnelly wanted.


Read more of David Macilwain — sixties drop out, Scientist-farmer, cheesemaker-Luddite, late life activist for the Resistance, Putin/Assad/Nasrallah lover. Atheist. Traveller-student through MENA-Russia-Europe. Abandoned UK frying pan for Australian fire. Marginalised dissident. Author for Russia Insider/AHT and OffG — at:



Read from top.