68

8chan: The Latest Fearporn Drive Guardian in Hysterics Over Threat of Homeless, Anonymous Shitposters

Kit Knightly

The Problem

8chan may have been shut down, but that doesn’t mean we’re safe.

You see, all the people that used 8chan before it was shut down are still out there. They might be on Twitter. They might be on Facebook. They might be ordering coffee at a Starbucks. They might be plotting some sort of far-right apocalypse. They might just be talking about movies on reddit. There’s no way of knowing.

We should all be terribly worried.

At least, according to The Guardian, who headline today:

8chan: ex-users of far-right site flock to new homes across internet

First off, of course, 8chan was not a “far-right site”, it was a site with some “far-right” people on it.

There are hundreds of boards on 8chan, with thousands upon thousands of different posters. Boards could be created by anyone to discuss anything.

The vast majority were dedicated to perfectly ordinary topics. Video games, fashion, cars, movies. There were many much more specific, fetishy, niche and weird…but not “far-right”. The site didn’t have an ideology except “free speech”.

The general shifting of “free speech” from something we all take for granted to being described as a “far-right agenda” is one of the most worrying trends in modern politics.

The article is actually funny, not least for the total lack of web literacy on display:

Former members of 8chan have scattered across the internet after the far-right site was shut down over the weekend

This is simply ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about the nature of 8chan et al. There are no “members”. That, indeed, is the whole entire point of the place. It is anonymous and temporary. No usernames, no registration, no “membership”.

The press has a long history of simply not being able to grasp the way the internet works (as in the famous “Who is this 4chan?” CNN interview or Fox’s “internet hate machine” piece), but this is such basic ignorance of the topic at hand that I almost can’t believe it’s genuine.

Indeed, it might not be. It might be that portraying “8chan” as some sort of organized community plays into the media’s need to generate fear. This generates, “the problem”, which sets us up for…

The Reaction

Having established that 8chan’s “far-right” “members” are out there in the ether, being terrifying, the article needs to get some feedback on what that means.

To do this they go to two “consultants”:

  • Joan Donovan, who runs the Technology and Social Change (TaSC) Research Project
  • Ben Decker the CEO of “Memetic Consultancy” (sic. It’s actually “Memetica”).

They are portrayed as two essentially different voices, as if we’re getting a spectrum of opinion. But the most cursory check on Donovan and Decker shows they are both research fellows at the Shorenstein Institute of the Kennedy School of Government. They aren’t separate. At all.

(NOTE: In fact, Memetica, Shorenstein, and other NGOs currently talking up the need for internet censorship are a ripe subject for a full-on exposé, and will be in the near future)

Not at all surprisingly, being research fellows for the same institute at the same university, Decker and Donovan absolutely agree on pretty much everything.

Primarily, that shutting down 8chan was a really good idea, but won’t – on its own – solve the “far-right” problem.

Apparently, all the people that posted on 8chan will NOT flee the internet forever, but will now just go and post somewhere else. Why anyone would need two Harvard-trained academics to tell them this, I don’t know.

Where will they go?

Well, other scary places of course. Like the “far-right forum” Gab, or back to 4chan or reddit. Some of them will be “absorbed” by the social media giants (meaning they will post on Twitter and Facebook), and some will post in discussions on encrypted message services like Telegram and Discord.

For some reason, Gab is a real bugbear for centrists, being regularly attacked simply for existing. Its one claim to infamy is that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter apparently had a Gab account…this, apparently, makes it a far-right social network.

Niche and independent networks are always attacked by-association in this way. The Dayton shooter and “MAGABomber” both had twitter accounts, and the Christ Church attack was live-streamed on Facebook…but they are not shut down.

The Solution

Having established that shutting down 8chan was brilliant, but more is needed, our two NGO representatives set out what else needs to be done:

One way to prevent 8chan users from migrating to alternative social media spaces like YouTube and Facebook would be to build a moat around the platforms to prevent inbound links from these sites,”

This is total, complete nonsense. 8chan is gone, so “preventing inbound links” from it is now moot. Secondly, users don’t click from 8chan to YouTube, or Facebook or whatever. That’s not how the internet works. This would never control users crossposting, or prevent people having different accounts on different platforms or anything like that.

All this would do is prevent people from linking to sources. It stops the flow of information, not users. If Ben is really a “social media consultant”, he knows that. He’s just dishonestly suggesting censorship on totally spurious grounds.

There is an inherent value in deplatforming the site as a whole and making it harder to be accessed because the nature of these communities makes it difficult to inoculate the spread of this toxicity.”

Just “deplatform” websites “as a whole” if they are “toxic”. That’s the solution. Who decides what’s “toxic”?

Well, obviously the government does. Duh.

That’s just the start though. Whilst these Harvard academics give us the problem a reaction and just a hint of “solution”, elsewhere on the Guardian we are presented with a full, detailed (final?) solution.

Julia Ebner – another researcher for yet another creepy-sounding NGO the “Institute for Strategic Dialogue” – headlines:

How do we beat 8chan and other far-right sites? The same way we beat Isis

Essentially, as CJ Hopkins has written, this is just a rebranding of the War on Terror for a modern age. More like a remake, actually, to use Hollywood parlance. The same themes, the same characters. New dialogue. Different casting.

Bellingcat got in on this one too, hosting an article claiming:

Until law enforcement, and the media, treat these shooters as part of a terrorist movement no less organized, or deadly, than ISIS or Al Qaeda, the violence will continue.

(NOTE: The ISIS comparison is more than apt. Now would be a good time to remember just how phony and manipulated the ISIS narrative was. Catte did excellent work on this.)

Julia writes that what we need is:

a stronger international response to condemn political rhetoric that belittles, legitimises or even endorses the dangerous concepts and conspiracy theories of far-right extremists.

Translation – Governments cooperating to suppress free speech. “Conspiracy theories” can, and will, mean absolutely anything they want it to mean. The DNC fixing the primaries for Clinton, for example. Or the Skripals being poisoned by MI6. Press bias against Corbyn. Criticism of Israel, or even mentioning the “Labour Friends of Israel”. These can all be defined as “conspiracy theories”.

On top of this Julia wants:

an international definition of terrorism that is ideologically agnostic and includes not only traditional jihadi organisations but also loose far-right networks.

Translation – An international definition of terrorism that is loose enough to be deployed against anybody for anything.

“Terrorism” will become even more absurdly vague than it is now. These “loose far-right networks” will mean “anybody who posts on Gab”, or “anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job”. Joining certain Facebook groups, visiting certain websites (there was actually a meme about this one). Watching RT. She says “loose”, and she means it.

It will shock you how “loose” these networks are. You’re probably in one, right now, just for reading this article. Welcome to our “loose network of far-right extremists”.

Most importantly Julia thinks…

…governments will need to look beyond the big tech platforms and introduce legal frameworks that tackle the ongoing migration of extremists to the smaller alt-tech sites.

Translation – Banning certain opinions from the big platforms that cooperate with the state is not enough. We then need to move against the smaller, independent platforms that – unlike Google, Facebook and Twitter – refuse to toe the party line.

Censor Twitter, and shutdown any platform – like Gab or Parler – that attempts to fill the “free speech” market niche. The state machine will love that, because it gives it control of narrative and information flow, while the social media giants will love it because it essentially writes their monopoly into law. That’s a massive win-win.

In that sense it coincides perfectly with the famous Mussolini definition of fascism – “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

The establishment is signalling intent here – the way they always do when these opportunities are either presented to them, or created by them. Harness that fear, sense the opening, and drive the push through.

It’s all rather like that old joke – “Q: What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start.”

Q: What do you call one website shut down for allowing free speech?

A: Just the beginning.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Filed under: featured, latest, media watch, On Guardian

by

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Norman Pilon
Reader

The reason I value freedom of speech is that I believe that the expression of opinions matter, and they matter because when opinions become convictions, they can affect how people behave, and how people behave can have beneficial effects for the lives of others.

But the expression of some opinions that can become convictions can lead to deleterious consequences for others.

Consequently, because speech can and does incite people to act in certain concretely and specifically harmful ways, I think it is unhelpful to defend any person’s right to freedom of expression in the abstract, that is to say, unconditionally, as though all expressions of opinions were of equal moral worth.

If it is obvious that certain currents of opinion incite hatred and violence, then in my opinion, to permit the expression of such opinions is an abuse of freedom of speech, for it is to permit and legitimize in its performance an act of effective violence, given that such opinions can and often times do result in irreparable harm to others.

When it comes to freedom of speech, as with all actions deemed to have moral consequences, what the speech promotes should be our guide as to whether we should or shouldn’t permit it.

A case in point:

“To allow fascists a platform in the here and now constitutes a harm to others – it legitimises racism, for example, and so increases the chances that black people [or other minorities] will experience violence. If fascists take control of the state, the experience of the Nazis in Germany shows that all freedom of speech ends and millions of people are murdered. Giving fascists a platform is thus a misuse of freedom of speech, just an incitement to murder Jews or Muslims is an abuse of freedom of speech. It’s also mistaken to believe that one can defeat fascists by debating with them, because for fascists such debate is not about an exchange of ideas, but about gaining legitimacy while encouraging violence – by the state, by individuals or, in many cases, by organising fascist gangs on the streets, as we saw with the EDL.” Real free speech is subversive, not about defending the status quo

If you can on moral grounds categorically condemn concrete acts of aggression and violence against the weak or innocent or defenseless, things like war and torture and murder, you can equally condemn speech that explicitly or implicitly and unambiguously incites such acts of violence, and to the degree that you are able, refuse to offer it a platform.

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Not to mention the censorship invited on divergent views regarding “Climate Change”.
“Terrorism” is stale.

Boatluanchroad
Reader
Boatluanchroad

Good summary, Man

Epaminondas
Reader
Epaminondas

Representative government can only take place among people who trust one another. We long ago passed that threshold. First came “hate speech” laws, and now they are labeling as “terrorist” anyone who dares to disagree with them anonymously on-line. We are now approaching the establishment of a full-blown tyranny, though even noticing this will get you into trouble.

Steve Hayes
Reader

There already is a long established definition of terrorism. It is the use of violence for political purposes. Whereas the expression of opinion is a fundamental human right. Yet the Guardian, and pretty much the rest of the political media elite, what to pretend that the expression of opinion contrary to their narratives is terrorism, whilst the fully support actual terrorism, which they represent as democracy, humanitarianism and the rule of law.

altCensored.com
Reader

thanks, enjoyed the article.

China has actively attempted to control their Internet for a number of years, with the help of the tech giants, hardware and software.

time will tell, but actual censorship and calls for more censorship are increasing.

(shameless plug)
altCensored.com is an Unbiased Community Catalog of over 19K Limited YouTube videos, including deleted content: “we show what they hide”

Tim Jenkins
Reader
Tim Jenkins

Nothing wrong with a shameless plug, if you are not hiding anything …

I wish you well, fighting censorship.

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

Thanks for the link! Much luck …

Trashing
Reader
Trashing

This 8chan sounds a good website to join. MSM did a good job in giving people the wrong impression about it and that’s the reason I didn’t go there ..

On the whole, look, the game is far more advanced than what we’re led to believe.

It’s almost certain, all calls to businesses are recorded for surveillance purposes and to collect voice samples from every individuals. so, elsewhere, when you talk, you can be identified even when you are not seen.

And this alternative-websites banning is another episode of antagonising the population and trashing [again and again] people’s rights to express themselves.

DunGroanin
Reader
DunGroanin

O/T – re: Epstein.
Sorry Admin I don’t know where else to post this but will keep it short, it is about msm narrative control,

I don’t mind if you delete it.

For these who are wondering about the release of some of the court records re Epstein, the Groan does it’s usual obfuscation reporting it. The best soutce is the original investigative journalism at the Miami Herald and the work of their local police going back a decade. Here’s their latest
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article233704797.html

Baron
Reader
Baron

Lucid, well argued, and spot on.

Unless the Governing Elites gain control of the Internet, they will gradually lose control over us. For them and their MSM poodles it’s an existential undertaking, they cannot afford to fail. We, on the other hand, cannot afford to let them win. One’s hard to decide which side will come victorious, but hopes it’s the latter.

Antipropo
Reader
Antipropo

Agree with your sentiment, however I’m afraid we long since lost the battle for narrative control else how could Iraq, Libya and Syria happen when so many could see through the lies yet still they went? Just one example is the Douma “gas attack” that wasn’t. OPCW final report: no organophosphate substances or their degradation compounds found, a chlorine cylinder their own(withheld but leaked) engineering report states could not have come through the reinforced concrete roof and suffered so little damage. Can’t remember, but I think the report shows the hole in the roof is too small anyhow. Result? not even a shrug from the msm or their masters, barely reported but the hunt is on for who leaked.

Saying goodbye
Reader
Saying goodbye

This is yet another terrible article with bad reporting, conjecture, conflating and stupid arguments. Example:

“One way to prevent 8chan users from migrating to alternative social media spaces like YouTube and Facebook would be to build a moat around the platforms to prevent inbound links from these sites,”

This is total, complete nonsense. 8chan is gone, so “preventing inbound links” from it is now moot. Secondly, users don’t click from 8chan to YouTube, or Facebook or whatever. That’s not how the internet works. This would never control users crossposting, or prevent people having different accounts on different platforms or anything like that.

All this would do is prevent people from linking to sources. It stops the flow of information, not users. If Ben is really a “social media consultant”, he knows that. He’s just dishonestly suggesting censorship on totally spurious grounds.

Apparently the person who wrote this article cannot actually READ the part where it said “migrating to alternative social media”. Youtube and Facebook COULD prevent inbound links from these alternative social media spaces (the author is assuming wrongly that 8chan users would migrate to Youtube and Facebook). Not likely, they will migrate somewhere else and the consultants ALREADY know this.

And to say that “users don’t click from 8chan to Youtube” is just terribly dishonest. Embedded links definitely allowed for that to happen.

“All this would do is prevent people from linking to sources” – No, it would do much more then that. It would prevent people from spreading their sources to social media channels like Youtube and Facebook.

“It would stop the flow of information, not users” – Also NOT true. It would stop those users from using Youtube and Facebook and similar platforms (who already have policy about postings that are disallowed and prohibited, their accounts get removed for repeated violations).

“He’s just dishonestly suggesting censorship on totally spurious grounds” – Also NOT true. Either shutting down a channel or a user account because of rules violations, hate speech, incitement to violence, criminal activity or any number of banned reasons is not “spurious grounds”.

I’ve been on 8chan and it’s definitely one of the worst places you can go on the Net (the Dark Web being worse). Cloudflare was in it rights to shut down 8chan. Free speech does not mean incitement to violence is permissible.

Once again, off-guardian gets it totally wrong. Two strikes in two days. Guess I should not be surprised, your writers are idiots.

It’s pretty clear that fact-based reporting and avoiding conjecture and straw arguments are not concepts understood by the off-guardian writers. Moreover, it’s clear to me that reactionary claims triumph over common sense. No reason at all to read this website for anything, it’s inaccurate, biased, reactionary and misleading it’s readers. No wonder you were banned. Kit, you’re actually a terrible writer. You may be fooling others that cannot see your falsehoods, but not me.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Hi there – we’re assuming by how incoherently upset you seem to be that you’re the author of the Guardian piece or one of the ‘researchers’ named in it, or someone affiliated. 🙂

In future try a serious defence/rebuttal of the actual points being made instead of this conflation of abuse and misdirection.

(Btw – try posting author-attacking ad hom on the Graun and see how long it stays there. – One of the many differences between us.)

George
Reader
George

“incoherently upset” is spot on. This was obviously a hostile response but when I started to read it, I couldn’t figure out if this guy was actually agreeing with Kit or not. This kind of bizarre mixed-up rant is becoming more and more common on the net.

KarenEliot
Reader
KarenEliot

Exactly the strain of incoherent circular rambling that passes for academic ‘discourse’ in so many quarters. Very obviously one of the paid-for ‘experts’ as Admin points out. Pitiful.

Baron
Reader
Baron

Listen up, Saying Goodbye, do us all a favour, go find a busy road, lie on to, please.

n. jowel
Reader
n. jowel
nottheonly1
Reader
nottheonly1

It is amazing what kind of brainwashed twats are going for an academic nowadays.

How do we beat 8chan and other far-right sites? The same way we beat Isis

Let that marinate Your mind for a while. ISIS was created by the US regime under Obama and Clinton. It was created in the exact same way Al Qaeda was created to defeat the Russians. ISIS was created to oust Qaddafi and to march on to Syria, where Clinton wanted a no-fly zone to protect her terrorist assets.

Sometime back in history, people like this Julia Ebner and her co-conspirators were publicly shamed. We need to re-introduce this feature for people like these pseudo academics for blatantly lying to their respective electorates.

At one point, this psychological projection will no longer work with the population. That time is inching in swiftly. The reason why the owner class employs these dim witted and pathetic excuses for a decent human being.

nottheonly1
Reader
nottheonly1

…would have been publicly shamed.

It's REAL
Reader
It's REAL

This is pretty accurate. It is all part of the ڷ Ʃ₩ design for the Middle – east. Also Qaddafi wanted a Gold Dinar to exchange for oil which would compete with the ڷ Ʃ₩ controlled Federal Reserve Note (the Petro-Dollar). But don’t worry folks. The Petro-Yuan is just around the corner and as soon as it gets here…..ڷ Ʃ₩s BTFO. This is why they wanted war in Iran so our white boys could die so the ڷ Ʃ₩s could get American military bases in the country before China/Russia team can move in and lock up the oil. But Trump wasn’t having any of the BS bought out Iranian Generals shooting at drones and BS pirate seizures of oil tankers. Notice that all of that vanished just as fast as it started??? I wonder why? Hmmm? Because it was all fake STUPID!!!!!! Just more Mossad black flag operations looking to get more of our white Christian boys murdered for a dumb war for Israel.

NOTE BY ADMIN – This is a troll account aimed at diverting this thread into racist crap about ‘Joos versus Whites’. We advise not responding to it and give notice there will be zero tolerance for any more such attempts at this OT diversion on this thread. If you really must talk about such topics at least confine them to broadly relevant threads

Fair dinkum
Reader
Fair dinkum

‘ Here’s the hymn book. Just sing from it and then shut the fuck up!!’

Doctortrinate
Reader
Doctortrinate

Long Live the Mainstream Propoganda Network….down with these Anti-Authoritarianist Alternatives of Free Speech, Fools, with the Selfish belief that they have the right to express uncensored opinions. Infiltrate – blacken their name….Destroy them from Inside – Brothers and Sisters, it is up to us to Impregnate them with Lies and Post them into Oblivion, ….Your Country Needs You – Your Leaders Need You…..Big Brother Needs – YOU.

George
Reader
George

The internet scares the shit out of our overlords. Take 9/11. Of course there will never – there CAN never be any serious consideration of the inside job idea on the mainstream media which must always scream “conspiracy madness!” But the point is that so much information got out on the net that a sizable part of the global population do not believe what the MM has told them. And once again, this cannot be admitted i.e. the MM must continue to insist that only a “nutty” minority have doubts about what they have been told. But the MM are uneasy. They can feel a mass swelling of disbelief rising below them.

Also there’s the matter of the ease with which anyone can now video anything. Imagine the JFK assassination with all those mobile phones and the internet available. There would have been a dozen “Zapruder” movies. And none of them would have agreed with the official one.

RobG
Reader

Technically speaking (and I’m not that technical) 8 chan hasn’t been removed from the internet, it’s been removed from the ‘clearnet’; ie, the internet that our glorious leaders allow to be visible (and please note how sinister that is).

4 chan and then 8 chan were a laugh for keeping up with the Q Anon rollocks, which has got to be one of the biggest cons in history, yet huge numbers of people fell for it (and continue to do so). One can only wonder how this muting of 8 chan relates to the Q Anon stuff and MAGA and the reality tv show host who is currently the American President.

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

Slightly off-topic but this gem appeared in today’s Graun penned by Owen Jones (aka the Squirt); how about this for chutzpah and irony.

”Boris Johnson’s no-deal election plot is an assault on democracy.”

Owen Jones

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Nope, Owen.
Your paper is an assault on democracy, and one of many such papers.

Rhys Jaggar
Reader
Rhys Jaggar

Well, I am 100% certain that Harvard will have to be shut down as it has accepted millions upon millions of dollars from terrorists, those who sympathise with terrorists, associate loosely with terrorists, not to mention those who occasionally support Yale in annual sporting contests.

1. The Murdoch family – ardent supporters of mass murder worldwide.
2. Mark Zuckerberg – industrial scale unconsented surveillance terrorising the right to thought ownership.
3. Bill Gates – incorporating back doors into all his software packages so global hacking of private content becomes routine.
4. Enormous support from Zionists who are the very definition of far-right non-brown supremacists.

Very, very difficult to see how the US university system can survive this: none of them have morals sufficiently clean to be allowed to continue…..

KarenEliot
Reader
KarenEliot

As a lowly University employee, Uk not US, I can confirm that the academics not totally cowed into precarious submission are nearly all grandstanding bullshitters, long on rhetoric and with the gift of the gab, but ultimately prepared to lick as many boots as it takes to protect their own privileges.

These social media experts (would someone actually think that prestigious…!) are as much paid shills as their Fraudian mates. contemptible.

Great article Kit, thank you

Its REAL
Reader
Its REAL

Yes…we need to clean house in all our major universities and see from which traitor networks their funding comes from.

William HBonney
Reader

A worthy article, and then you go and ruin it…

Or the Skripals being poisoned by MI6

One has to ask, what the f*** is wrong with you people?

If it was so obviously MI6, maybe you could have warned them, before it happened, being all seeing…

Antipropo
Reader
Antipropo

Can you then offer a plausible explanation of how the British army chief nurse happened to be the first person to attend the Skipals-with her daughter- but didn’t need hospitalised, but the cop who arrived later did? Why did the ROOF of the Skipal house need replacing for “novichok” smeared on the door handle and how many people need to touch the door handle at your house to close the door? Why wasn’t the restaurant demolished or shut down? How about the non dead ducks and the non poisoned boys who ate some of the Skripal’s bread? No really, I’d love to see you explain all that. That’s without even going into the Pablo Miller-Steele-Skipal connection-Miller and Steele “ex” MI6

William HBonney
Reader

What you have done their is appropriate knowledge of the mechanism by which a chemical weapon, in gel form, poisons.

Why do chemists bother with their exhaustive study when some guy sat in his underpants, at his mother’s computer can simply download the expertise from Google?

Admin
Moderator
Admin

If you can’t answer the simple questions put to you just say so. But DON’T fall back on off topic ad hom in a poor attempt at diversion. You deeply embarrass yourself and contribute nothing.

Portonchok
Reader
Portonchok

By the way Admin, the votes up and down have become combined again, another glitch?

William HBonney
Reader

If you can’t answer the simple questions put to you just say so. But DON’T fall back on off topic ad hom in a poor attempt at diversion. You deeply embarrass yourself and contribute nothing.

While I’m aware that you vigorously defend the right of commentators here to indulge in JAQing off*, there should be some underlying expertise motivating what are highly technical questions, other than a distaste for UK security services, and a rather juvenile romanticisation of a vindictive and violent foreign power.

If you really question the official version, then pony up your expertise in medicine and/or chemical weapons, so the assertion that commentators here know exactly how you go about poisoning someone with a chemical weapon, what results you would,
and would not observe, won’t seem so ludicrous

*You’ll excuse the innuendo, given what you condone others posting.

OffG
Moderator
OffG

You simply evaded the questions you can’t answer – again. Until you do answer there’s nothing more to say.

Free Norwegian
Reader
Free Norwegian

THANK YOU FOR BEING SO UTTERLY BAD AT WHAT YOU DO THAT YOU WAKE MORE PEOPLE UP THEN KEEPING THEM INSIDE THE NARRATIVE WITH YOUR UTTER NONSENSE MR 77TH(OR SIMILAR) YOU ARE ALMOST DOING A BETTER JOB THEN THIS SITE TBH, I KNOW THAT IS NOT YOUR MEANING AND THAT MAKES IT EVEN FUNNIER.

Antipropo
Reader
Antipropo

Another wanker. The funny thing is though, people like him provide a good starting point to refute their nonsense. As noted by admin, no attempt to argue a counter point just childish insults(which is why I childishly call him a wanker).

Portonchok
Reader
Portonchok

The substance used had miraculous properties, never attributed to Novichok previously, and with Porton Down laboratory 8 miles down the road, well, you can imagine how these things might appear on the scene?

William HBonney
Reader

The substance used had miraculous properties, never attributed to Novichok previously, and with Porton Down laboratory 8 miles down the road, well, you can imagine how these things might appear on the scene?

How long have you been an expert on novichok? Since last March, perhaps?

George
Reader
George

You don’t need to be “an expert on novichok”. All you have to do is note discrepencies in the claims made.

Baron
Reader
Baron

Just answer the questions, William, the lecturing you can keep to yourself.

(Better still, put a pair of trousers on, go learn English).

Mucho
Reader
Mucho

Thank you William, for providing this opportunity to link to a website which pieces together the complex Skripal/Salisbury false flag. Now readers can link to it and gain a deep understanding of just how nefarious and off the rails the government and its various agenices have become, how they pose a threat to the security of the nation and its people and how, most importantly, we can prove that they are continually lying to the population about their actions in matters of the highest importance.

Like you William, the government has no credibility (look at the PM of the UK, just look at the twat, lol! He’s a dirty low down lying piece of filth though so he fits in really well and is popular among fellow scumbags), and no matter what they say or how much they try and keep people from the truth, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and nothing you post can alter this movement.

Summing up the Official Claims in the Salisbury Poisonings: Weighed in the Balances and Found Wanting, January 2019
http://www.theblogmire.com/summing-up-the-official-claims-in-the-salisbury-poisonings-weighed-in-the-balances-and-found-wanting/

Free Norwegian
Reader
Free Norwegian

Thnx for sharing that link.

mark
Reader
mark

Your problem, A, is that you can’t believe six impossible things before breakfast.
You really must do better.

Antipropo
Reader
Antipropo

What a wanker you are. Not even any attempt to discuss the points I-and others on this forum- have raised. Then apparently without any irony you put the “6 impossible things” on me when it’s you who apparently can’t accept how impossible it is that the first responder-remember? the chief nurse of the British army- needed no treatment but the police officer who arrived later did. How many people DOES it take to close a door at your place? Why DID’NT the boys who ate bread given to them by the people “poisoned” with the not so 10 times deadlier than sarin need care? No answers eh?

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

Antipropo

apparently without any irony

I think you’ll find that @mark WAS actually being ironic …it was his way of agreeing with you. Hence the number of up-votes he has received. I have followed posts from different contributors to this website for long enough now to have a good idea as to who are ‘official narrative trolls’ or msm victims etc…and Mark would be mortified to think he had been tagged as any such thing!

mark
Reader
mark

No, A, I’m just saying that you should model yourself on the Queen of Hearts and believe all the impossible things we are told without question. After all, they wouldn’t lie to us, would they?

Antipropo
Reader
Antipropo

Genuine and humble apologies Mark I completely misread your post and thank you JudyJ for sorting me out. I stand by my designation of William H as a wanker however. Does he ever actually address ANY if the questions put to him?

mark
Reader
mark

No need for that, A,
No problem at all.
I think the Queen of Hearts herself would have difficulties with today’s realities.

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

Pray, who then do you think poisoned the Skripals. OK, that is what I suppose you might call a rhetorical question. Let’s follow it up then by a second question. Who benefited from the Srkirpal episode? Cui bono? Was it Russia and Putin immediately before the World Cup and the Presidential elections. Seems unlikely don’t you think. They are not that stupid. You may not like Putin or Russia and he may be a lot of things but he is not stupid enough to carry out such a botched operation at the totally inappropriate time – but appropriate for the western media.

MI6 did it, Russian agents did it. Well I have a third take on this. Skripal himself made a lot of enemies is his time as a double agent. It would not surprise me in the least if some these non-state Russian actors, who obviously had a score to settle, were behind the intrigue.

But hey, I am just speculating. I don’t go in for categorical statements, particularly when they lack any empirical evidence.

William HBonney
Reader

Pray, who then do you think poisoned the Skripals.

It was the Russians. No-one else has the motive, means and opportunity. Any other possible explanation fails when two ‘former’ Russian special forces officers, with false names, consecutive passport numbers, and an improbable fascination for ecclesiastical architecture are caught, on camera, sauntering down the streets of Salisbury, in the relevant time frame.

Russia has long vowed not to permit what it classes as traitors, resting easy after escaping abroad. While it won’t admit to the world its guilt, the method flaunts this in the face of any future Russian citizens who may have thought about defying the state.

Russia miscalculated though, in two ways,a) the world has changed subtly in the decade following Litvinenko, and no longer indulges Russia to the same extent, and b) their security services are nowhere near as competent as they once were. All the talented thugs now work for the private sector where the money is.

George
Reader
George

OK Billy Boy – I sort of promised not to get involved in your perpetual-motion bullshit machine ever again. But there’s just so much fun to be had when entering your little Wonderful World of Bollocks. Take this:

“It was the Russians. No-one else has the motive,….”

Blaming Russia has been a long pastime in the West. After all – we are planning to up the ante on domestic “terrorism” (i.e. anyone who dissents) and it’s alway useful to have a foreign bogey man to link them with so you can call them “unpatriotic”. Also, America is desperate to maintain its global position in a world where it is economically going down the drain and this may call for some actual muscle i.e. bombing the bastards.

“means…”

Seriously Billy? I mean SERIOUSLY?

“…and opportunity.” See last response.

William HBonney
Reader

Blaming Russia has been a long pastime in the West.

I think you’ll find that’s because Russia and the Soviet Union (as was) have a long history of attacking their compatriots abroad for having the temerity to escape. God forbid we should take exception to that.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

Perhaps you might care to explain why such “attacks” only seem to occur in the UK? I don’t suppose it could be connected to the high proportion of nefarious oligarchs resident in the country and to whom most, if not all, of the attacked individuals had business connections. The same oligarchs who have financially propped up the respective incumbent UK governments over many years.

William HBonney
Reader

Perhaps you might care to explain why such “attacks” only seem to occur in the UK?

They don’t. They got Trotsky in Mexico as I recall.

George
Reader
George

“attacking their compatriots abroad for having the temerity to escape”

So it’s an act of revenge then? Not exactly a compelling reason. On the other hand, the UK seized on this matter to ratchet up tensions with Russia, leading to the expulsion of 150 Russian diplomatic staff from embassies around the world and the extensions of sanctions against Moscow.

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

”It was the Russians.” But of course. Pity I wasn’t smart enough to work that one out. I do have one or two reservations, however.

What exactly was the motive for this event? You did say ‘No-one else has the motive.’ did you not? I did suggest to you that the friends and relatives of those comrades whom Skripal betrayed might have had very good motives, but I am only speculating; it was a possibility that’s all.

But I still don’t what the motive of state authorities in Russia could have been – if any. This particularly at a time when Russia was due to stage the football (soccer) world cup, perhaps you were annoyed that the USA didn’t qualify? Moreover, Putin would not have wanted such a negative event to mar his election for Russia’s Parliament. (BTW Skripal did not ‘escape’ to the west, he was merely involved in a spy swap after doing time for treason in a Russian prison. If the Russians wanted to kill him they would have done so.)

I’m sure you know what I mean, the sort of usual practise involving troublesome whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning. Oh and I forgot to mention, a Mr Epstein who has apparently committed ‘suicide’ – Yes of course he has. But that another subject.

And as for the

”two ‘former’ Russian special forces officers, with false names, consecutive passport numbers, and an improbable fascination for ecclesiastical architecture are caught, on camera, sauntering down the streets of Salisbury, in the relevant time frame.”

Do you think that the Russian secret police and would be assassins would really act in such a bizarre manner? The official narrative of which this is apart is what we in the UK describe as over-egging the pudding. Come on old chap, that really is stretching credulity to breaking point. It strikes me also that if this was an attempted assassination then it was a rather a botched affair nearly all the victims lived to tell the tale. I think that a professional hit squad would made a more lethal outcome than what actually happened.

Finally, you state ”Russia has long vowed not to permit what it classes as traitors, resting easy after escaping abroad.”

Of course Russia viewed Skripal as a traitor what else were they going to do when he passed the list of Russian agents over to the US/UK CIA/MI6. As for ‘escaping’ to the west, to repeat Skripal was part of a spy swap and the Russian authorities were glad and happy to see him go as he no longer represented a threat.

William HBonney
Reader

But I still don’t what the motive of state authorities in Russia could have been – if any

Followed by

Of course Russia viewed Skripal as a traitor what else were they going to do when he passed the list of Russian agents over to the US/UK CIA/MI6

Join the dots.

OffG
Moderator
OffG

And of course they couldn’t off him during the years he was in their custody because reasons, so they simply had to get two gormless tourists to spray ‘novichok’ over half of Salisbury in order to ‘send a message’ that Putin is a Bond Villain and give the West an excuse to further attack the Russian economy.

It’s amusing that persons of your persuasion will buy any old conspiracy theory if it’s sold to you in an official box. 😄

mark
Reader
mark

No, Putin did it. Because he’s an evil cartoon villain, and that’s what evil cartoon villains do.

RobG
Reader

The Salisbury poisoning, followed by the Amesbury poisoning, were all so blatantly ridiculous that I’m constantly amazed that sentient beings can take any of it seriously.

Cognitive dissonance has a lot to answer for.

We are ruled by criminal psychopaths. Get used to it.

Jumpbean Max
Reader
Jumpbean Max

Who in the hell is this strawman of yours referring to? Did Kit claim in the article he was “all seeing”? Or claim that the Skripals were indeed poisoned by MI6?

Liar or fool. Or both.

Ramdan
Reader
Ramdan