Summary: We can learn much about America by watching the Deep State and their journalist lackeys manufacture and defend propaganda. The hit of Sergei Skripal in England has set the machine in motion. We love these stories with their simple plots and cartoon-like characters. Watch the fierce attacks on those who look behind the curtain and tell us the rest of the story.

“Mr. President, if that’s what you want there is only one way to get it. That is to make a personal appearance before Congress and scare the hell out of the country.” — Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to Truman about starting the Cold War. Truman did so in his famous speech on 12 March 1947. From Put yourself in Marshall’s place by James Warburg (he helped develop the US WWII propaganda programs).

On 4 March 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, visiting him from Moscow, were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent in Salisbury, England (see Wikipedia). In the 1990s, Skripal was an officer for Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) – and a double-agent for the Brits. This hit sparked a major diplomatic incident. Of course, Russia was blamed.

Former British diplomat Craig Murray has reviewed the evidence. Like so many of the stories that helped start the Cold War, and are now starting Cold War 2, journalists sold it to us as definitive – and it breaks down under examination.

Murray’s first article at his website about the hit shredded much of the “Russia did it” story, showing that the narrative rested on air. Excerpts posted with his permission.

“…As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown. …

“Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true. …

“Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis. Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW {Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons}. Why? {Update from ABC: Friday evening the British government said that they have asked OPCW to send officials to Britain to examine a sample} …

“‘Novichoks’ were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them …The ‘Novichok’ programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.”

His follow-up is interesting, but for different reasons.

“In 13 years of running my blog I have never been exposed to such a tirade of abuse as I have for refusing to accept without evidence that Russia is the only possible culprit for the Salisbury attack. The abuse has mostly been on twitter, and much of the most venomous stuff has come from corporate and state media ‘journalists’. I suppose I am a standing rebuke to them for merely being stenographers to power and never doing any actual research, but that hardly explains the visceral levels of hatred exhibited.

“Today they are all terrifically happy and sharing amongst themselves a lengthy twitter thread by a Blairite and chemist called Clyde Davis in which they all say I am ‘owned’ and my article disproven. There are two remarkable things about this thread.

“The first remarkable thing is the remarkably high percentage of those who are sharing it with commendations who are mainstream media journalists. Last I saw was George Monbiot five minutes ago, but there are dozens. I suppose it is important to them as validating their decision to support uncritically the government line without doing any actual journalism. …”

Davis makes many claims, backed by diagrams from Wikipedia. His is a style of argument common in politics (often seen in comments on the FM site, in debates about the Iraq War in 2005 and in recent years about climate change): big statements, claims of authority, lots of abuse (such as this “You wouldn’t recognise a mass spectrometer if it hit you smack in your stupid gob.”)

Murray explains that some of Davis’ claims are irrelevant: “that chemists are able to identify whether or not a substance is one of the “novichok” compounds.”

Some are wrong, such as this: “*All* molecules with the same formula have *exactly* the same properties and will exhibit the same characteristics as any other.” Nod Bruce explains why.

“Mass spectrometry identifies the masses of substances and can perhaps identify a formula, but not a structure. It is the structure, not the formula which defines the properties of a substance. Spectrometry can say “100% Carbon” but cannot identify whether it is amorphous (charcoal / soot), graphite (lubricant) or diamond (not soot or lubricant!). A prion has exactly the formula of a normal protein – it will look identical to spectrometric / spectroscopic analysis – but one is essential to life the other lethal.”

Murray nails Davis down on key points, such as this…

“And how does the mass spectrometer tell you the sample was made in Russia if you don’t have an example of a Russian made one to compare? I shall listen to your reply with genuine interest, despite your completely unprovoked aggression.”

Davis replies “So now you’re going to lecture me on chemistry?” Eventually Davis admits the obvious: “No it can’t be proven beyond doubt purely on Chemistry …”

This “debate” is typical in another way. “The second remarkable thing is that the thread they are all sharing misses out almost all my side of the conversation.” This kind of selective engagement is familiar to anyone who engages in political debate

Why are journalists so excited?

“Davies, by claiming credentials as a chemist, conforms to the corporate media urge for an appeal to authority. He validates the government line and he is a chemist. He can throw in the names of chemicals and molecular diagrams. That kind of thing impresses journalists. That he explicitly admits the chemistry cannot prove Russia did it, is apparently irrelevant.

“Davies thus provides a smokescreen of respectability by which they can continue to advance their careers by cutting and pasting the government line without question.”

The bottom line should be obvious to anyone who has read The Big List of Lies by our Leaders (all of whom required cooperation of journalists for their success).

“Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!

— Advice from Screwtape to his nephew, from The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis (1942).

A note from Britain

Britain still has distinct political parties – unlike America, where our Bobbsey Twins parties via with each to kiss the boots of the Deep State. As seen in this statement by Seumas Milne, communications director of Britain’s Labour Party.

“I think obviously the government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don’t; however, also there’s a history in relation to WMD and intelligence which is problematic to put it mildly. …If you remember back to the WMD saga, there was both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics. So there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence … Clearly this issue has to be followed on the basis of the evidence.”

A note from the doctor

Letter to the Editor in The Times, 16 March 2018.

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.”

By Stephen Davies, Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.

The Times reported this in an article on the same day.

Conclusions

What do we know? Two people are dead by chemical assassination. Since most (all?) major nations have used assassination and have the capability to have committed this crime, we must rely on motives to finger the guilty. Since we do not know the details of secrets involved, that cannot be done. Until we get more information, the logical conclusions from Craig Murray’s analysis is that we do not know much

The useful lesson from the material here is that no matter how often our leaders lie to us – and during the Cold War they have lied a lot – many in America and Britain still automatically believe them. We are gullible sheep, a gift to our ruling elites.

About the author

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He joined the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1984. His career culminated as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002 to 2004. It ended when he criticized regime as repressive and using torture (both the American and British governments freaked out). Afterwards he was Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

In 2016 the US government refused to allow him entry to the US.

See his bio. See his Wikipedia entry –he has led an extraordinary life. See his articles at his website.

For More Information

The big picture about US – Russia relations: We ended the Cold War by lying to Russia. They remember, even if we don’t.

Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Russia, about RussiaGate, about propaganda, and especially these…

Two new books about the new Cold War.

Return to Cold War by Robert Legvold and Who Lost Russia?: How the World Entered a New Cold War by Peter Conradi. See Tony Wood’s review of these new books in the London Review of Books.

Craig Murray’s book about a real spy.

From the publisher…

“This is an astonishing true tale of espionage, journeys in disguise, secret messages, double agents, assassinations and sexual intrigue. Alexander Burnes was one of the most accomplished spies Britain ever produced and the main antagonist of the Great Game as Britain strove with Russia for control of Central Asia and the routes to the Raj. There are many lessons for the present day in this tale of the folly of invading Afghanistan and Anglo-Russian tensions in the Caucasus. Murray’s meticulous study has unearthed original manuscripts from Montrose to Mumbai to put together a detailed study of how British secret agents operated in India.”