It’s what we know that just ain’t so

Title comes from Chuckles, from whom the article also comes.

Judging the credibility of a source from such a distance in time is not easy, but sometimes a single telling detail provides an important clue. In revisiting Huddleston’s book, I noticed he casually mentioned that in Spring 1940 the French and British had been on the very verge of a military attack against Soviet Russia, which they regarded as Germany’s crucial ally, and planned an assault on Baku, intending to destroy Stalin’s great oil fields of the Caucasus by a strategic bombing campaign.

I had never read a single mention of this in any of my World War II histories, and until recently I would have dismissed the story as an absurd rumor of that era, long since debunked. But just a couple of weeks ago, I discovered a 2015 article in The National Interest confirming these exact facts, over seventy years after they had understandably been expunged from all of our mainstream historical narratives.

One only need look at the Skripals and the latest one and it’s clear that it’s who’s telling the tale – there is so much concealed history going on. We know about Chechnyan atrocities by Basayev and there is Beslan but I know of an atrocity by Russian soldiers, spit roasting enemies. Don’t ask how I know.

The return of the Crimea to Russia was by plebiscite but this is never mentioned by the west [NATO.CIA] who support the Ukrainian usurpers.

We are in a time – if ever we weren’t in a time – when disinformation rules – and we need only look at CNN and Trump. May’s open betrayal is SO open, so transparent that one is deeply suspicious – is this all about the devil’s bargain she made to get power, that she was always going to leave with her image in further tatters than it was? Or does the fool really think she’d soing right?

Has she been Manchurian candidated? Has she any free will?

That’s where we are – we can trust nothing and nobody.

By design?

5 comments for “It’s what we know that just ain’t so

  1. July 12, 2018 at 9:49 am

    Basically the way I see it is the elite have told the government that if the taxpayer doesn’t pay to allow free trade with Europe (keeping their profit margins high) that they will pull out of the UK and decimate the economy.

    Rather than companies themselves paying to join a verification process to trade across the UK-EU border, they want us the taxpayer to foot the bill to stay in the EU.

    That’s essentially the difference between the original Brexit white paper and the Chequers one.

  2. July 12, 2018 at 10:20 am

    I forgot to add, how it is that 15% of our economy can effectively add a tariff (in the form of EU rules and regulations) to the 85% that don’t trade with the EU and get the whole country to pay for it is beyond me.

    Why is it the small businesses of the UK have to abide by regulations that mean nothing to their business?

    How is it that such a small part of the UK economy has such a huge influence on Parliament?

    Then you look to the way the EU do business: their lack of accountability, the cronyism, the lack of financial accounting and then you start to understand….

  3. July 12, 2018 at 12:02 pm

    Why is it the small businesses of the UK have to abide by regulations that mean nothing to their business?

    Precisely. English taxpayer subsidising Europe and the home countries – bleed us dry, then overrun us with Muslim and other welfare beggars.

    • Bill
      July 13, 2018 at 7:14 am

      United Kindgom taxpayers James. England is not a state and the EU is a union of states.

  4. Pcar
    July 12, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    Crimea to Russia was by plebiscite


    Also, iirc after USSR collapse Crimea was sort of donated to Ukraine without asking Crimea

    As for May, plenty on her treachery here:

Comments are closed.