If countless Russia-bashing pieces don't help you get the big picture of the lingering Skripal saga, a report by RT's Murad Gazdiev may. He scrutinized the major slipups in the UK government's (and their pundits') narrative.

It is "highly likely" that Russia deployed a deadly weapons-grade toxin to poison former double agent Sergei Skripal. Porton Down, the UK's leading chemical research lab, says there is "no doubt" the toxin was Novichok-class nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union. And Russia surely did it, because the very word 'Novichok' is Russian for 'newcomer.'

RT's Murad Gazdiev examines the stunning discrepancies that emanate from the Skripal case, as the blame game against Moscow continues.

The report includes commentary from renowned chemical weapon experts, both Russian and Western-based, who told RT the formula of Novichok-class agents is actually an open secret as any - yes, you heard it right - laboratory in the world may produce the same substance with the same degree of purity. Moreover, the pace at which the UK authorities identified the poison used on the Skripals raises even more questions.

Watch RT's report in full here:

For the past 500 years European nations - Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain, France and, briefly, Germany - were able to plunder much of the planet by projecting their naval power overseas. Since much of the world's population lives along the coasts, and much of it trades over water, armed ships that arrived suddenly out of nowhere were able to put local populations at their mercy.

The armadas could plunder, impose tribute, punish the disobedient, and then use that plunder and tribute to build more ships, enlarging the scope of their naval empires. This allowed a small region with few natural resources and few native advantages beyond extreme orneriness and a wealth of communicable diseases to dominate the globe for half a millennium.

The ultimate inheritor of this naval imperial project is the United States, which, with the new addition of air power, and with its large aircraft carrier fleet and huge network of military bases throughout the planet, is supposedly able to impose Pax Americana on the entire world. Or, rather, was able to do so - during the brief period between the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of Russia and China as new global powers and their development of new anti-ship and antiaircraft technologies. But now this imperial project is at an end.

Those of us with a functioning BS meter and a decent grip on reality have known for many years that the mainstream media has, at least periodically, operated as a fifth branch of government (in the USA) and the 'Ministry of Truth' (in the UK). In recent years however, on all geopolitical topics - in particular those relating to Russia and the 'War on Terror' - the Western press seems to have fully embraced the role of Western government mouthpieces.

In recent months and weeks, with the outrageous claims over the Skripal affair and the 'chemical weapons attack' in Douma, Syria, the US, British and French governments have sunk to new lows (or new highs) in the blatancy of their lies and fabrications, the vast majority of them aimed at Russia.

Tune in this week when your hosts will be discussing the problem that is the Western media from 12-1:30pm EDT / 6-7:30pm CET this Sunday April 22nd.

Running Time: 01:42:12

Download: MP3

Trump boasted on Twitter that the US-led strikes on Syria last weekend were a "mission accomplished", which drew criticism from many who likened it to Bush's infamously premature statement about Iraq.

There were differing reports about how many missiles were shot down by Syria's Soviet-era air defense systems and the scale of damage that was wrought by the ones that did get through the country's anti-missile shield, but the general consensus is that Trump's mission didn't accomplish much and may have even been more militarily ineffective than last year's strike in reaction to the Khan Sheikhoun false flag chemical weapons attack from that time. Furthermore, a bold statement such as "mission accomplished" implies a victory much broader than just launching some missiles, most of which are regarded as having never even made it to their targets.

An interview with a prolific Twitter user accused by the British government of being a "Russian Bot" quickly turned heated as challenged their arguments, particularly their claim that by not toeing the UK government line, he was "anti-Britain" - and perhaps even a Kremlin agent.


It all started with a blog post from the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the DC-based, Gulf-funded think tank Atlantic Council, which said that some of the conversations about the poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal "appear to involve organized activity, including possibly fake accounts masquerading as English users, in the well-known pattern of the 'troll factory' in St. Petersburg." The post devotes a substantial portion of space to Twitter user @Ian56789, cited as an "unusual account" that was "especially active" on the subject.


​The British government claimed on Thursday to have concluded that there was a 4,000 percent increase in activity from Russian trolls following the Skripal poisoning and the West's attack on Syria on April 14, naming @Ian56789, hereinafter 'Ian,' as one of the Kremlin's accounts.

The US government, for its part, claimed there was a "2,000 percent increase in Russian trolls," as opposed to activity therefrom, although that was just in reference to Syria, not the poisoning in Salisbury.

Two of the most remarkable facts concerning the April 14th attack on Syria by the US, UK and France are:

1. Materially, the attacks were completely ineffective, as explained by Joe Quinn's article About Those 'Nice, New, Smart' Missiles And The 'Chemical Weapons' Sites in Syria. The Syrians understood this, which is why they were celebrating rather than mourning when the sun came up.
2. They were carried out hours before the OPCW mission reached Syria and right after the Russian Ministry of Defense began showing testimonies of local doctors denying there was a chemical attack in Douma. This suggests F.UK.US. were in a hurry to make a show of force before the facts could be properly analyzed while distracting attention away from the evidence.

Rather than demonstrating strength, these facts speak of weakness, impotence and a desire to compensate with theatrics. The US knows it cannot go too far in its pursuit of regime change in Syria because it risks paying a heavy price at the hands of Russia. Even if it could take out all Russian forces in Syria, it is not willing to lose any ships, aircraft or personnel and thus lose its status as the supreme global military force. Furthermore, there is always the risk of escalation, which is madness when it comes to nuclear powers. The Americans are acutely aware that they are playing with fire, which explains how careful they were to stay away from Russian targets. The attack was carefully measured to appear stronger than last year's, yet not strong enough to provoke Russia into action. This could also explain, in part, why the Trump administration is seeking to replace US troops in Syria with an Arab force, as it is much safer (and cheaper) to fight with proxy forces.

In the aftermath of the strikes on Syria, and as more information is coming out about the chemical attack that never was, it is becoming increasingly clear that Western mainstream media outlets are also losing their dominant positions and their grip on the narrative.

Veganism, the strict practice of abstaining from the consumption and use of animal products, is on the rise. Reportedly, there are about 1.6 million vegans in the United States. The trendiness of being vegan dwarfs their actual representation in the population and a closer look at vegans tends to reveal something not quite right. Occasionally, a news story pops up where a vegan does something that most folks would find utterly bonkers such as wanting to feed dogs vegan diets, harassing meat-eating restaurant patrons, sitting idly by while a vegan baby dies of malnutrition, and most recently, shooting up people at a YouTube office.

We don't mean to cast aspersions, but are vegans nuts? Join us for this episode of The Health and Wellness Show where we explore this question and the very real underlying dietary reasons for why this may be so.

And stay tuned for Zoya's Pet Health Segment, where she speaks about the inappropriateness of vegetarian diets for pets.

Running Time: 01:43:49

Download: MP3

Britain's strategic relationship with radical Islam goes back decades and continues to this day.

There is no more foul a stench than the stench of hypocrisy, and there is no more foul a hypocrisy than the British government painting Bashar al-Assad as a monster when in truth he and the Syrian people have been grappling with a twin-headed monster in the shape of Salafi-jihadi terror and Western imperialism. Both are committed to destroying Syria as an independent, non-sectarian state, and both are inextricably linked.

Author and journalist Mark Curtis charts in detail the contours of this history in his book Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam:

"British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world."

"It began about 1850 reached its peak about 1914, and ended about 1932. Typical forms of economic organization were the limited-liability corporation and the holding company. It was a period of financial or banker management rather than one of owner management as in the earlier period of industrial capitalism."

--Professor Carroll Quigley describing Financial Capitalism (p. 42)

The City

In the two millennia since the Romans fortified the lowest crossing point of the River Thames, the City of London's wealth has meant neither the Crown, nor Parliament could subordinate it. From an early stage, the City became the dominant power in foreign policy and government finance in Britain (nee England). The Ulster plantation and the Royal charters for the Levant Company and the East India Company were orchestrated by powerful City financiers. Traditionally, and to the ire of successive generations of British manufacturers, the City of London preferred international investments to investing in local industry.

The use of debt as a weapon wasn't invented by City of London financiers, but they perfected the technique in the years preceding the Age of Financial Capitalism. At the time Europe was scrambling to halt Napoleon's advance and were forced to borrow to finance their extra expenditure, in desperation they turned to the City. From this point, the City's financiers had brought the rulers of Europe into debt servitude, under financial and banker management.

"The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 (the Bank of England, the City and the Rothschilds played a key role by financing the Emperor's enemies), the expansion of the Empire and the Industrial Revolution, allowed Britain to establish its position as international hegemon with supremacy in industry, shipping and finance... [The City] preferred the more profitable opportunities offered by financing trade and foreign wars, making loans to governments and generating speculative investment opportunities. Capitalist Industrial production like agriculture before it, depended largely on regional and local sources of finance ..." (Lambie, p. 341)

We can't talk about the City of London in this period without giving special mention to the Rothschild family. Between 1808 and 1859 they developed a capital fund and intelligence service that their rivals couldn't compete with. Over half of all sovereign bonds placed in London (the global financial center) were issued by the Rothschilds, with a face value of over £42 million (Ferguson 2009, p. 87). By 1852 their combined capital was £9.5 million. In 1899 it was £41 million, dwarfing Baring Brothers, the Banque de France and the leading German joint-stock banks (Ferguson 2009, p. 89).

Sott.net senior editor Joe Quinn spoke with PressTV in the immediate aftermath of the F.UK.US. airstrikes against Syria late last week.

Describing Israel as the "quiet elephant in the room," Quinn noted that despite US influence over events in Syria being largely trumped by Russia in recent years, the tripartite alliance of France, the UK and US are continuing military operations at the behest of Israel, which is hysterical about encroaching Iranian influence across the Middle East, and what that entails for Israeli regional hegemony.

But it's a losing game, he stressed. All four countries - along with their regional allies - are losing their historical positions in the Middle East, and are desperately trying to do something to stop that from happening. At the same time, however, they are apparently not so desperate that they will risk a 'hot war' with Russia.

In the process of 'projecting their strength', they have exposed how weak they have become militarily, but their avalanche of lies in the media about how 'successful' the event was for them indicates that they remain dominant in the information war.