The truth at last ( Archived) (9)

Former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, refused to go along with the BBC propaganda on Syria and dropped a truth bomb live on air yesterday.


Fed up with the state sponsored propaganda from the very start, Peter Ford dispensed with niceties and disagreed on every level possible with the very first question put to him by the BBC host.

Referring to claims that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria, the BBC host said, “That’s a statement of fact, right?”

Wrong.

“It’s a myth,” Ford said, his voice thick with disgust for mainstream media idiocy and lies.


“It’s a statement of non-fact,” he continued, immediately rocking the host back on his heels.

“What’s needed is an investigation, because there are two possibilities for what happened. One is the American version, that Assad dropped chemical weapons on this locality. The other version is that an ordinary bomb was dropped and it hit a munitions dump where jihadis were storing chemical weapons. We don’t know which of these two possibilities is the correct one.


“Remember the run up to Iraq. The experts, the intelligence agencies, the politicians were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They produced reams of evidence, photographs, diagrams. They were all wrong. It was all wrong. It’s possible that they are wrong in this instance as well. That they are just looking for a pretext to attack Syria.”

That was more truth than the BBC usually broadcasts in a week. Aware the truth quotient was way too high for his superiors’ liking, the BBC host went into damage control mode, and started reading from the same script CNN and MSNBC hosts use whenever a guest dares to go against the deep state approved narrative.

That’s right, the desperate mainstream media host accused Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria, of being a Russian operative.

The left-wing press aren't as bad and the BBC still has its charter. You'd never in a million years see a concession made to the opposition out of Fox News or the Daily Mail, it would never happen.

The right-wing is naturally power over principle in a philosophy of action and the left is more principle over power in a philosophy of thought and therefore the left was made for permanent opposition. The right-wing win the short-term battle because it's more liable to do anything for power and the left wins the culture war for the exact same reason why it loses the political battle. The left-wing intellect and restraint pays off longterm, it carries the times themselves over to the left, and the right-wing of action and force wins the day.

Although without a valid socialism on the left the working class belong on the right and will be forgotten by the times. The ruthlessness which comes from being a desperate loser belongs on the right, grasping people often have or had nothing and having low self-esteem and low-confidence they think that resources and opportunities are harder to come by than they really are. This is right-wing. A false sense of scarcity sets in which makes people more aggressively competitive and hostile to the concept of sharing and this explains why losers can and do vote against their own economic interests.

The greatest generation were very left-wing and came from nothing, but they were content without material things and that's why they were left wing. Although they were materially desperate they didn't have low self-esteem because they had the spirit of the Blitz, they had each other.

Baby boomers who grew up with rationing and retired with iPads are very different. A great recession was experienced as a small blip by many boomers, it effected them least of all, and yet this created an explosion of grasping selfishness amongst them. Their reaction to hardship was the complete and utter opposite of the spirit of the Blitz and only amongst the young is their a slight rebirth of spirit of the Blitz - small habits of sharing and cooperation many of which have come in the wake of 2008. The people who make hard times are very different to the people who inherit such times.

It works in a similar way to the army. What do you do with a man who can't or won't organise or discipline himself? Kick him into a regiment. The best soldiers are men who have fallen off the rails of becoming a man and they need that somone to kick them into being a man because this does not come naturally. The army isn't adulthood it's almost another upbringing, you're raised by the army in an almost second attempt at childhood for those who didn't grow up the first time. He's not a self-made man, that's the last thing he is, and some men need to be forced into being a man and when these men become the norm you will see a Putin, Erdogan, Trump general to marshall the masses. Men falling off the rails and joining the army is quite a lot like men failing in the world and voting Trump.

i must warn you against hijacking my thread .

I believe Peter Ford ....as past history teaches us that Saddam Hussein didn't had weapons of mass destructions as political propaganda wanted us to believe....Everything was planned in advance for profitable reasons.
I am against any unnecessary war that helps depopulation agenda.