Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
OnTarget Archives Newtimes Survey Podcast Library Video Library PDF Library
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Library

On Target

26 September 2014 Thought for the Week:
“Hitler can be beaten; Russian Communism, with its soulless materialism and ant-heap idealism, can be beaten; American Financial Domination can be beaten; but they can be beaten only by the preservation of our National British Culture and by the expression of those ideas of independence which are peculiarly ours. Introduction: The military conflict raging today (WWII) has much more deeply seated causes than those which appear on the surface. The military conflict is only one part of a much bigger conflict which is taking place on a world front. It is the final clash between two fundamentally different philosophies, and the importance of understanding the real nature of these two opposing forces cannot be over-estimated…”
Eric D. Butler in “The War Behind the War: The Real Nature of the Opposing Forces” 1940s


by Rodney Atkinson.
Promoting the democratic sovereignty of nation states and free trade in Europe and around the world.

“Free - Not subject as a slave is to his master; not subject to foreign dominion”.
“Nation - A distinct people organized as a separate political state”.
Oxford English Dictionary

The Scottish National Referendum will have been held by the time this edition of On Target is in the hands of our readers, but the following article by Rodney Atkinson should give Australians food for thought along with the proposal for an Aboriginal Constitutional Recognition referendum.

1993 Treason charges predicted today’s crises in mass immigration, the Scottish Referendum, the Euro, Parliament’s powers, EU taxes and regulation, citizenship and voting rights.

On 9th September 1993 Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter laid before the magistrates court in Hexham, Northumberland under the process known as “Misprision of Treason” 7 counts of treason against the British Constitution and people by two Ministers who had signed the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Some weeks later in Scotland Norris McWhirter laid a further case.

The Crown Prosecution Service took 4 months to consider the charges but, headed by the political post of Attorney General (who acted in contravention of the legal principle of non judex in re sua the CPS refused to address the specific charges and declared that the treason at the signing in 1992 was made legal by the passing of the European Communities (Amendments) Act 1993. The treason of 1992 had been legalised!

But treason was committed in 1992 and that act remains a crime since British law recognises it was the law at the time.

The Scottish Referendum
The de facto overturning of the 1706 Union with Scotland Act by the 1992 Treason and the surrender of UK self Government by Ministers on a daily basis since 1972 mean the contract with the Scots was broken. The occupiers of Scotland including those who are not Scots at all now vote to destroy the United Kingdom. The 1993 Treason cases showed that 500m people could move to and vote in any EU country’s national elections. The Government denied this. But it is happening in the Scottish National referendum.

So the aim of the treason committed at Maastricht by British politicians was the destruction of the United Kingdom – now within 10 days of realisation.

The Crown Prerogative is the power of Her Majesty’s Government to act on the authority of the Queen and without the authority of Parliament. It is impossible for the Government of the day to undermine the constitution when signing treaties with other countries under Crown Prerogative powers. So no Treaty which contradicted the Act of Settlement, the Coronations Oath Act, the Union with Scotland Act, the Treason Acts, Constitutional Case Law (R v Thistlewood 1820) and Magna Carta and confirmed the permanent superior power of European Union Law could justify the use of undemocratic Crown Prerogative Powers.

The end results of our treason cases were statements from the Crown Prosecution Service in England and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. They refused to address the specific charges at all and both countries declared that the treason at the signing in 1992 was made legal by the passing of the European Communities (Amendments) Act 1993.

The treason of 1992 had been legalised! But treason was committed in 1992 and that act remains a crime since British law recognises it was the law at the time. And since the 1993 Act could not overturn the British Constitution that Act was nul and void.

The Cases therefore remain unanswered – because they were unanswerable. But they remain a marker even today since they can be picked up and used by a British people slowly awakening to the deceitful and covert destruction of their democratic sovereignty on the altar of the European State.

Case 1
It is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors.” Article 8 of the Treaty of Maastricht which Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union and therefore “subject to the duties imposed thereby”, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed and thereby effectively deposed as the sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the “European Union”.

Case 2
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty says “every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union” with the right to move and reside freely and vote within the territory” and “the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by each member state.” So the British people and Parliament have no right to determine the numbers or identity of non British nationals to whom other European states can give residence rights and voting rights in the United Kingdom.

Case 3
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any “person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto…shall be capable to be…a Member of either House of Parliament” And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 “to destroy the constitution of the country” is an act of treason. according to Article 8b of which “Every citizen of the Union residing in a member state of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate in the Member State in which he resides.”

Case 4
And whereas, according to the Act of Settlement 1700 S4 “The laws of England are the birthright of the people” And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to “destroy the Constitution” is an act of treason. according to Article 8 the British people, without their consent have been made the citizens of the European Union with duties towards the same and the british people can be taxed directly by that European Union without further process in the Westminster Parliament and according to Article 171 of which the British State can be forced to pay a monetary penalty to the European Union.

Case 5
Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects “according to their laws”. And whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without…to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors” The Treaty extended the powers of the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament in the new “European Union” to make and enforce in the United Kingdom laws which do not originate in the Westminster Parliament. And that this loss of democratic rights was without the express consent of the British people.

Case 6
Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733) And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason. According to Article Q the Maastricht Treaty “is concluded for an unlimited period” and from which there was no right of nor mechanism for secession.

Case 7
Whereas it is established by a statute in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) that: “No freeman may be…disseised…of his liberties or free customs…nor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land.” The “Treaty of European Union”…etc.. which disseises all free men of their liberties and free customs under the law of this land by subjugating their Government to the extension of the powers of the European Commission, Court and parliament (in which latter the United Kingdom members form a minority of 87 of 567 voting members). Under Article 192 of the integrated treaty our free men are open to be taxed without further process of the United Kingdom Parliament Under Article 8 of the Treaty free men are required to become citizens of the European Union “subject to the duties imposed thereby.”

Whereas it is an offence per S1 of the Treason Act 1795: “to enter into measures tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom” and whereas to destroy the constitution per R v Thistlewood 1820 is an act of treason. This treaty is contrary to and inconsistent with the Union of Scotland Act 1706 whereby the people of the United Kingdom be represented by the one and the same Parliament and none other and per Article XVIII that no alteration be made in laws which diminish the rights of Scots Under the treaty, the rule of a Parliament other than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is established whereunder, subjects within Scotland become subject to laws made in an assembly in which their representatives form a minority seven fold more slender than in the parliament of the United Kingdom established by the Act of Union. Therefore the said Rt Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt Hon. the Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason.

Source: Do watch the video by Rodney Atkinson filmed partly at Runnymede, which is now on the freenations website. If you have trouble downloading the video, ask Doug Holmes for help. Phone 08 8396 1245.


writes Rodney Atkinson.
We reproduce below an article by James Bissett the former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia who describes the transformation of NATO from a defensive military force foreswearing all aggression to an expansionist military threat to Russia and its former satellites. The absurd propaganda campaign against Russia is now leading Europe to a war which Brussels, Berlin and Washington have provoked by their long standing meddling in Ukraine (a part of Russia for over 220 years).

German political foundations, the CIA and the expansionist Brussels empire have for 20 years sought to take over Ukraine – despite their repeated assurances to Russia that former soviet satellites would be allowed free determination and NATO would not threaten Russia. The violent and bloody overthrow of a democratically elected Ukraine Government and an election which excluded most Russian speakers in the East of Ukraine in which an immensely wealthy oligarch came to power, combined with the encirclement of Russia by NATO bases and the recognition by Germany of blatantly fascist movements in Ukraine all show where the provocation for this war came from.

The might of NATO and the stifling suppression of nations by the European Union are a powerful threat, recognised in the West as much as in the East. It is a characteristic of bankrupt and declining economies like the USA and the European Union that they seek external aggression to bolster support at home. The Ukrainian fiasco will have the opposite effect.”


By James Bissett September 9, 2014

Defence Watch Guest Writer
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was meant to be a purely defensive organization. When the Brussels Treaty of 1948 established the European Defence Alliance of five European countries, it was Canada ’s Minister of Foreign affairs, Louis St. Laurent, who proposed the alliance be expanded to include the United States and Canada. One year later, in April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was born. The primary purpose of the new organization was to defend member states from any attack from the Soviet Union and to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

NATO was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its founders were painfully aware that having reached the mid-point of the 20th century there had already been two world wars and the dropping of the atom bomb on civilian cities. They were determined that war and violence should not become the norm in resolving disputes and it was in this spirit that Article I of the treaty was conceived.

Article I of the Treaty made this abundantly clear. It read:
“The parties undertake, as set out forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved, by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered… and to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

For fifty years NATO was successful in deterring aggression against the West. A combination of conventional forces and the nuclear bomb created a mutual understanding that armed conflict between the two opposing powers was not an option. Critically important, however, was Article I itself because it was a guarantee to the Soviet Union that it would never be attacked by NATO forces. Article I acted as a safety blanket for the Soviets.

Ironically, the fall of the Soviet empire did not foretell the beginning of a new age of peace and security in Europe. On the contrary, the empire’s demise caused a crisis in NATO. After the Warsaw Pact armies had returned home what was the justification of maintaining such an expensive and powerful military force in Europe. NATO’s response was – business as usual- a continuation of the Cold war. As the respected former United States Ambassador to Moscow, George F Kennan wrote in 1987… “Were the Soviet Union, to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military industrial complex would have to remain substantially unchanged until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” Until his death Kennan continued to deplore NATO’s hostile encirclement of Russia.

In fact, NATO didn’t have to find another adversary it just pretended nothing had changed and acted accordingly. NATO’s behaviour towards Russia speaks for itself; a record marked by duplicity, double standards and hypocrisy. One of its first acts was to convert the Alliance from a purely defensive organization to one that could intervene militarily to resolve international disputes by force. The opportunity for this transformation occurred with the 78 day bombing of Serbia in March 1999 carried out by NATO without authorization from the UN Security Council. Later, in violation of UN Resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia ’s sovereignty over Kosovo, NATO recognized the unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence – declared without any pretence of a referendum.

During the bombing on NATO’s 50th birthday, US President Bill Clinton announced a new role for NATO – from now he declared, in effect, that NATO could intervene wherever and whenever it decided to do so. Article I of the treaty presumably had been nullified by Presidential decree. The NATO treaty had been turned upside down. In the same month NATO admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO thus breaking the promise made to Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev that if Russia allowed a united Germany into NATO the organization would never expand eastward.

The current crisis in Ukraine threatens global security and at worst has the potential for nuclear catastrophe. At best it signals a continuation of the Cold War. Sadly, the crisis is completely unnecessary and the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the United State–led NATO powers. The almost virulent propaganda onslaught blaming Russia for the instability and violence in Ukraine simply ignores reality and the facts.

NATO, spurred on by the United States, has been determined since the collapse of the Soviet Union to surround Russia with hostile NATO members. The first attempt to win Ukraine over to the West through the Orange Revolution in 2004 failed but NATO kept trying and now has “let slip the dogs of war” on that unfortunate country.

It was inevitable that NATO’s expansion eastward would at some point run into hostile Russian reaction. The attack on South Ossetia in 2008 by the US armed and trained Georgian military was the last straw and Russia finally showed its teeth and crushed the Georgian offensive in 48 hours. The Russians then added insult to injury by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. President Putin had warned that the illegal recognition of Kosovo independence would set a dangerous precedent and endanger the international framework of peace and security. Obviously his warning was unheeded and now the Cold War has started again. This was not supposed to happen.

It is time for the citizenry of the NATO countries to demand that the principles contained in the original NATO treaty be honoured and that Article I be followed. Bellicose statements, sanctions and other warlike moves (however futile) are not helpful in reaching a peaceful solution. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen should stop threatening Russia and instead reaffirm to the world that Article 1 of the treaty will be enforced.

(James Bissett is a former Canadian diplomat. He was Canada ’s ambassador to Yugoslavia , Albania , and Bulgaria )


From Swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White Sharks – 12/9/2014 Strelkov: from swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White sharks
There are powerful interests which want a never ending war which would create a bleeding ulcer for Russia

His (Strelkov’s) description of the 5th column:
• The roots of this 5th column go back to the Yeltsin years
• The liberation of Crimea took the 5th column by surprise
• The 5th column is around President (Putin)
• There is a local 5th column in Donbass which has been and still is negotiating with Ukie oligarchs
• The 5th column is composed of "liberals"
• Putin is a moral threat to them because he has massive popular support
• They want to overthrow Putin
• They want to dismember Russia
• This will be a long war on Russia
• We are dealing with another 1905 and 1917 like situation
• By saving Novorussia Russia can save itself
• Western sanctions will hurt Russia and they will use them to discredit Putin

The full article can be read here…


The World After World War III? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Source:

Redrawing Russia The end goal of the US and NATO is to divide (balkanize) and pacify (finlandize) the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space, similarly to what is being done to the Middle East and North Africa. The future Russia or the many future Russias, a plurality of weakened and divided states, that Washington and its NATO allies see is/are demographically in decline, de-industrialized, poor, without any defensive capabilities, and hinterlands that will exploited for their resources.

The Plans of the Empire of Chaos for Russia

Breaking the Soviet Union has not been enough for Washington and NATO. The ultimate goal of the US is to prevent any alternatives from emerging in Europe and Eurasia to Euro-Atlantic integration. This is why the destruction of Russia is one of its strategic objectives. Washington’s goals were alive and at work during the fighting in Chechnya. They were also seen in the crisis that erupted with EuroMaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step of the divorce between Ukraine and Russia was a catalyst for the dissolution of the entire Soviet Union and any attempts at reorganizing it.

The Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was US President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and an architect behind the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, has actually advocated for the destruction of Russia through gradual disintegration and devolution. He has stipulated that «a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization».
[1] In other words, if the US divides Russia up, Moscow would not be able to challenge Washington. In this context, he states the following: «A loosely confederated Russia—composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic—would find it easier to cultivate closer economic regulations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with [East Asia], which would thereby accelerate Russia’s own development».
[2] These views are not merely constrained to some academic’s ivory tower or to detached think-tanks. They have the backing of governments and have even cultivated adherents. One reflection of them is below.

US State-Owned Media Forecasts the Balkanization of Russia
Dmytro Sinchenko published an article on September 8, 2014 about dividing Russia. His article titled «Waiting for World War III: How the World Will Change».
[3] Sinchenko was involved in EuroMaidan and his organization, the Ukrainian Initiative «Statesmen Movement» (Всеукраїнської ініціативи «Рух державотворців»), advocates for an ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of most the bordering countries, reinvigorating the pro-US Georgia-Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova (GUAM) Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, joining NATO, and launching an offensive to defeat Russia as part of its foreign policy goals.
[4] As a note, the inclusion of the word democracy in GUAM should not fool anyone; GUAM, as the inclusion of the Republic of Azerbaijan proves, has nothing to do with democracy, but with counter-balancing Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Sinchenko’s article starts by talking about the history of the «Axis of Evil» phrase that the US has used to vilify its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined the phrase in 2002 by grouping Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together, how John Bolton expanded the Axis of Evil to include Cuba, Libya, and Syria, how Condoleezza Rice include Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar (Burma), and then finally he proposes that Russia be added to the list as the world’s main pariah state. He even argues that the Kremlin is involved in all the conflicts in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia. He goes on to accuse Russia of planning to invade the Baltic States, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland, and, even more ridiculously, two of its own close military and political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As the article’s title implies, he even claims that Moscow is intentionally pushing for a third world war. This fiction is not something that has been reported in the US-aligned corporate networks, but is something that has been published directly by US government-owned media. The forecast was published by the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which has been a US propaganda tool in Europe and the Middle East that has helped topple governments.

Chillingly, the article tries to sanitize the possibilities of a new world war. Disgustingly ignoring the use of nuclear weapons and the massive destruction that would erupt for Ukraine and the world, the article misleadingly paints a cozy image of a world that will be corrected by a major global war. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the author are essentially saying that «war is good for you» to the Ukrainian people and that some type of utopian paradise will emerge after a war with Russia.

The article also fits very nicely into the contours of Brzezinski’s forecast for Russia, Ukraine, and the Eurasian landmass. It forecasts the division of Russia whereas Ukraine is a part of an expanded European Union, which includes Georgia, Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon, and Denmark’s North American dependency of Greenland, and also controls a confederation of states in the Caucasus and the Mediterranean Sea—the latter could be the Union of the Mediterranean, which would encompass Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and the Moroccan-occupied Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Western Sahara. Ukraine is presented as an integral component of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine appears to be situated in a US-aligned Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kiev axis that Brzezinski advocated for creating in 1997, which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS. [5]

Redrawing Eurasia: Washington’s Maps of a Divided Russia

With the division of the Russian Federation, Radio Free Europe’s/Radio Liberty’s article claims that any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington would end after World War III. In a stark contradiction, it claims that only when Russia is destroyed will there be a genuine multipolar world, but also implies that the US will be the most dominant global power even though Washington and the European Union will be weakened from the anticipated major war with the Russians.

Accompanying the article are also two maps that outline the redrawn Eurasian space and the shape of the world after the destruction of Russia. Moreover, neither the author nor his two maps recognize the boundary change in the Crimean Peninsula and depict it as a part of Ukraine and not the Russian Federation. From west to east, the following changes are made to Russia’s geography:

• The Russian oblast of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland, or Germany. One way or another it will become a part of an enlarged European Union.
• East Karelia (Russian Karelia) and what is currently the federal subject of the Republic of Karelia inside Russia’s Northwestern Federal District, along with the Federal City of St. Petersburg, Leningrad Oblast, Novgorod Oblast, the northern two-thirds of Pskov Oblast, and Murmansk Oblast are split from Russia to form a Finnish-aligned country. This area could even be absorbed by Finland to create a Greater Finland. Although the oblast of Archangel (Arkhangelsk) is listed as a part of this partitioned area in the article, it is not included in the map (probably due to a mistake in the map).
• The southern administrative districts of Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky, and Usvyatsky in Pskov Oblast from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost administrative districts of Demidovsky, Desnogorsk, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Monastyrshchinsky, Pochinkovsky, Roslavlsky, Rudnyansky, Shumyachsky, Smolensky, Velizhsky, Yartsevsky, and Yershichsky, as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, in Smolensk Oblast from the Central Federal District are joined to Belarus. The Smolensk Oblast’s Dorogobuzhsky, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky, and Yelninsky districts appear to be portioned further in the map as the new border between Belarus and the proposed amputated Russia.
• The North Caucasian Federal District of Russia, which is comprised of the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia–Alania, Stavropol Krai, and Chechnya, is separated from Russia as a European Union-influenced Caucasian confederation
• The South Federal District of Russia, which is constituted by the Republic of Adygea, Astrakhan Oblast, Volgograd Oblast, Republic of Kalmykia, Krasnodar Krai, and Rostov Oblast, is completely annexed by Ukraine; this leads to a shared border between Ukraine and Kazakhstan and cuts Russia off from the energy-rich Caspian Sea and a direct southern frontier with Iran. • Ukraine also annexes the oblasts of Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh from Russia’s most heavily populated federal district and area, the Central Federal District.
• Siberia and the Russian Far East, specifically the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, are torn off from Russia.
• The text states that all of the territory in Siberia and most of the territory in the Russian Far East, which are comprised of the Altai Republic, Altai Krai, Amur Oblast, the Republic of Buryatia, Chukotka, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Irkutsk Oblast, Kamchatka Krai, Kemerovo Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai, the Republic of Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Magadan Oblast, Novosibirsk Oblast, Omsk Oblast, Primorsky Krai, Sakha Republic, Tomsk Oblast, the Tuva Republic, and Zabaykalsky Krai either turn into several Chinese-dominated independent states or, alongside Mongolia, become new territories of the People’s Republic of China. The map categorically draws Siberia, most the Russian Far East, and Mongolia as Chinese territory. The exception to this is Sakhalin Oblast.
• Russia loses Sakhalin Island (called Saharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kurile Islands, which constitute Sakhalin Oblast. These islands are annexed by Japan. On his own webpage, Sinchenko posted his Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article days earlier, on September 2, 2014. The same maps, which are accredited to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, are also present. [6] There, however, is an additional picture on Sinchenko’s personal webpage that is worth noting; this is a picture of Russia being cheerfully carved out for consumption as a large meal by all the bordering countries. [7]

Mapping a New World Order: The World After World War III?

The second map is of a post-World War III globe that is divided into several supranational states. Japan is the only exception. The second map and its supranational states can be described as follows:
• As mentioned earlier, the European Union is expanded and has control over its peripheries in the Caucasus, Southwest Asia, and North Africa. This is the realization of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and Partnership for Peace at the political and military levels and the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Union of the Mediterranean) at the political and economic levels.
• The United States forms a North American-based supranational entity that includes Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana), and the entire Caribbean.
• All the countries that are not swallowed by the US in South America will form their own supranational entity in a lesser South America, which will be dominated by Brazil.
• Some type of Southwest Asian bloc or supranational entity will be formed out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen.
• Some type of a supranational entity will be formed in the Indian sub-continent or South Asia out of India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), and Thailand.
• There will be a supranational entity in Australasia and Oceania that will include the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, East Timor, Papa New Guinea, New Zealand, and the islands of the Pacific. This entity will include Australia and be dominated by Canberra.
• Aside from North Africa, which will be controlled by the European Union, the rest of Africa will unify under the leadership of South Africa.
• An East Asian supranational entity will include most of the Russian Federation, Indo-China, China, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, and post-Soviet Central Asia. This entity will be dominated by the Chinese and dominated from Beijing. Although Radio Free Europe’s article and two post-World War III maps can be dismissed as fanciful notions, some important questions have to be asked.

Firstly, where did the author pick up these ideas?
Were they transmitted through any workshops supported by the US and the European Union indirectly?

Secondly, what informs the author’s visions of a post-World War III political landscape?
The author has essentially catered to Brzezinski’s outline of a divided Russia. The text and the maps have even included the areas of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Caucasus that the European Union views as a secondary periphery or layer to itself. These areas are even shaded with a lighter blue than the darker blue used to identify the European Union. Even if Radio Free Europe is dismissed; no one should lose sight of the fact that Japan still lays claim to Sakhalin Oblast and the US, European Union, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have been supporting separatist movements in both the Federal Southern District and the North Caucasian District of the Russian Federation.

The Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article radiates with traces of Ukrainianism, which is worth briefly mentioning. Nations are constructed, because they are all dynamic communities that, in one way or another, are constructed and kept together by the collective of individuals that make societies. In this regard they can be called imagined communities.

There are machinations at play to deconstruct and reconstruct nations and groups in the post-Soviet space and Middle East. This can be called the manipulation of tribalism in sociological and anthropological jargon or, in political jargon, the playing out of the Great Game. In this context, Ukrainianism has particularly been supportive of anti-government elements and anti-Russian nationalist feelings in Ukraine for more than one hundred years, firstly under the Austrians and Germans, later through the Poles and British, and now under the US and NATO. Ukrainianism is an ideology that seeks to reify and enforce a new collective imagining or false historic memory among the Ukrainian people about them always being a separate nation and people, in both ethnic and civic terms, from the Russian people. Ukrainianism is a political projection that seeks to deny the historic unity of the Eastern Slavs and the geographic roots and historic context behind the distinction between Ukrainians and Russians. In other words, Ukrainianism seeks to de-contextual and to forget the process that has led to the distinction of Ukrainians from Russians.

*** Russia has always arisen from the ashes. History can testify to this. Come what may, Russia will be standing. Whenever all the diverse people of Russia are united under one banner for their homeland, they have shattered empires. They have survived catastrophic wars and invasions and have outlived their enemies. Maps and borders may change, but Russia will remain. Award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaza is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He is Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy.

[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (NYC: Basic Books, 1997), p.202.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Дмитро Сінченко [Dmytro Sinchenko], «В очікуванні Третьої світової війни. Як зміниться світ,» [«Waiting for World War III: How the World Will Change»], Радіо Вільна Європа/Радіо Свобода [Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty], September 8, 2014.
[4] Всеукраїнської ініціативи «Рух державотворців,» [Ukrainian Initiative «Statesmen Movement»] «Стратегія зовнішньої політики,» [Foreign Policy Strategy] Рух Державотворців: втілимо мрії в життя [Statesman Movement: Chasing Dreams/Visions]. Accessed September 9, 2014: .
[5] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, op. cit., pp.85-86
[6] Дмитро Сінченко [Dmytro Sinchenko], «В очікуванні Третьої світової війни. Як зміниться світ,» [«Waiting for World War III: How the World Will Change»], Дмитро Сінченко (Блоґ) [Dmytro Sinchenko {blog}], September 2, 2014, Accessed September 3, 2014: .
[7] Ibid.


by Chris Knight

Chris Knight’s article is timely. Having just reread Vandana Shiva’s article in the September 2014 New Times Survey where she writes of the superweeds and superbugs Indian farmers now have to contend with - having used pesticides and herbicides for many years – it would seem Mother Nature has mounted her natural forces against modern science… editor

Natural (17 July, 2014) reports that drug-resistant superbug infections are at near-epidemic levels at U.S. hospitals. The journal “Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology” reports that there has been a recent 500 per cent fatality rate in the spread of CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae). Those infected have a 50 per cent fatality rate and there are no antibiotics available to treat it.

The multi-drug resistant superbug was created by the medical profession through using narrowly-targeted antibiotics which led to the bacteria developing resistance, Natural News argues. Drug companies have not undertaken the development of new drugs because it is more profitable to manufacture “lifestyle management drugs” which can be sold to the entire population to “treat” the diseases of affluence.

The associate director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Arjun Srinivasan has said that humanity is at the end of the antibiotic era. The response by Natural News is that the situation is not hopeless as there are natural broad spectrum antibiotics such as pure honey. The end of techno-medicine will lead man back to the wisdom of nature, and nature’s pharmacy.

Sources for the article:


The Independent, Charlie Cooper - 7 September 2014

Because, says a leading scientist, there was 'no business case' for a vaccine “The scientist leading Britain's response to the Ebola pandemic has launched a devastating attack on "Big Pharma", accusing drugs giants including GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi, Merck and Pfizer of failing to manufacture a vaccine, not because it was impossible, but because there was "no business case".

West Africa's Ebola outbreak, which has now claimed well over 2,000 lives, could have been "nipped in the bud", if a vaccine had been developed and stockpiled sooner – a feat that would likely have been "do-able", said Professor Adrian Hill of Oxford University. A team led by Professor Hill is to begin trials of an experimental Ebola vaccine fast-tracked into development in a desperate bid to slow the spread of the virus in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. If it passes safety and effectiveness trials, 10,000 doses of the vaccine – co-developed by the Britain's GSK and America's National Institutes of Health (NIH) – could be used to protect health workers in West Africa by December.

However, Professor Hill said that the fact that a vaccine had not been available to stop the disease when it emerged in Guinea six months ago represented a "market failure" of the commercial system of vaccine production which is dominated by the pharmaceutical giants. The scale of the Ebola outbreak and the devastation it is causing in terms of lives lost and social breakdown had led the World Health Organisation (WHO) to order an unprecedented acceleration of normal drug development processes. Experts are looking at 10 different unlicensed and experimental Ebola therapy and vaccine candidates, of which the GSK/NIH vaccine is among the most promising. Regulatory processes that usually take up to 15 years have been abandoned, to fast-track drugs and vaccines into the field….”

Read further here…


One is tempted to ask the authors of the following article - where have you been all these years? But I guess ‘better late than never’. The article appeared online in The Conversation, 26 August 2014. If any of these folk had been around early in the 20th century they would have had access to the work of such ground-breaking pioneers as Sir Albert Howard of ‘composting’ fame and would have well understood the fundamental importance of the ‘bugs and germs’ in the soil. Also, social crediter, the late Dr Geoffrey Dobbs, was by profession a biologist and his speciality was the study of fungi. He could have told them quite a lot about the fungi… editor.

Don’t overlook what’s underfoot – save the bugs and germs

A handful of soil needs vital micro-organisms to grow the food we eat.

One of the biggest problems for conservation today is that it ignores 95% of all known species on Earth. Could a company ignore that proportion of its clients or a government so many of its voters? So why does this problem exist in conservation? Some 90% of all of the Earth’s species are either invertebrates or micro-organisms, and the folly of ignoring the latter is encapsulated by UK Professor Tom Curtis writing in Nature Reviews Microbiology:

I make no apologies for putting micro-organisms on a pedestal above all other living things, for if the last blue whale choked to death on the last panda, it would be disastrous but not the end of the world. But if we accidentally poisoned the last two species of ammonia-oxidisers, that would be another matter. It could be happening now and we wouldn’t even know […]

It’s good to save the whale but protect the little things too. Ammonia oxidisers are naturally occurring bacteria that are essential for maintaining the most economically valuable nutrient in soil: nitrogen. They are good examples of the other millions of mostly tiny soil species, either microbial or invertebrate, upon which all agriculture and forestry depends.

Their astonishing genetic, chemical, metabolic and population properties are those that generate the essential processes, such as nitrogen cycling, that drive all the primary industries. This being so, the primary industries are obviously biodiversity-based industries. Yet we are confronted every day with a wide range of opinion that agriculture and forestry are the greatest threats to biodiversity.

So how bad is this disconnect? We can’t see all the biodiversity

I once asked a farmer if he had any biodiversity on his land. He said that he had a few patches of remnant native vegetation that attracted some birds and other species. “How many species would that be,” I asked. He said he thought it would add up to several dozen. When I pointed out that the square metre of soil he was standing on likely harboured 2,000 different species he was staggered – even more so when I pointed out that they contributed directly to his yields and profits. Recent research has explored approximate dollar values of these components of biodiversity, and there is one example that provides some sharp insights. Across the world an economically vital invertebrate, the honey bee, is in catastrophic decline, threatening yields in many crops in many countries. Honey bees play a vital role in pollination but their populations are under threat in many parts of the world. While research is revealing the possible cause, farmers are increasingly looking for alternatives, especially native bee species and other suitable flying insects.

Honey bee pollination has an annual value of several billion dollars worldwide but it is beginning to look like other species, including native bees, beetles and flies, can maintain economically significant pollination rates. But very often the native bees' ability to survive in agricultural landscapes where they are needed and their conservation status – that is, their future as economic resources – is unknown.

It is important to note here that in addition to the primary industries, microbial and invertebrate biodiversity provides vital resources for an increasing variety of other industries.

These includes pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, construction materials and the species that drive the newer bio industries such as bio-control, bio-mining and bio-remediation.

But as Professor Curtis points out, we haven’t a clue whether or not any of these resource species require conservation – because nobody is looking. Industry too needs to protect biodiversity Perhaps the biodiversity-based industries provide hope for conservation. If a large component of biodiversity is essential to a large component of the economy, then its study and conservation becomes the business of the industries that depend on this biodiversity for their resources.

This opens the door to a massive change in attitude towards biodiversity conservation. It ceases to be an activity confined to conservationists but is directly in the interests of a variety of biodiversity-based industries at the core of every economy. Why hasn’t this happened? It is because the interests of those focused on the 5% of species on Earth that are plants and vertebrates have come to dominate the field. Thus, biodiversity has been sold short all along. There are many in conservation who argue passionately that conserving biodiversity for economic reasons – placing a dollar value on species – is unethical.

This is the point raised by US Professor Michelle Marvier of the Breakthrough Institute, writing in the Ecological Society of America: Setting up dichotomies of economic growth versus the protection of nature is a dead-end for conservation. Conserve all species great and small.

Humanity needs both the large, charismatic species of plants and animals, and the vast hordes of mostly microscopic species that greatly outnumber them. Importantly, there are many connections between them. The benefits flow in both directions. Pollinators are again a good example: areas of natural vegetation around crops supply native pollinators while the crops supply huge amounts of nectar and pollen to their insect benefactors. Natural biodiversity also supplies the predators and parasites of crop pests. There is less knowledge about interactions involving microbes but we do know that some modern agricultural methods greatly reduce the diversity of soil microbes. This is likely to be detrimental to ecologically sustainable food production.

It is going to take very serious resources to capture the knowledge required to work out the functions and conservation status of the millions of micro-organisms and invertebrates upon which we all depend. Sure it’s going to be a hard sell, but at least we should see conservation and industry as partners rather than rivals.


by Peter Ewer
The housing affordability crisis is also impacted upon by foreign buy-ups of Aussie real estate. (The Australian 1 July 2014, p.6) In the past nine months foreigners have spent $5.5 billion buying up Aussie real estate, a total of 13 percent of the total value of all property sold in that time period. In Victoria the foreign-based proportion of purchases was almost a quarter of the total – 23.2 percent. This is leading to local Aussies being priced out of the market – dispossessed.

The Foreign Investment Review Board is supposed to inhibit foreigners from buying fixed homes in all but exceptional circumstances, but the Board is allowing Chinese investment in established homes. Why? Because the government wants Australia to be bought up. Why is this? Because “our” government is not “our” government but a mere pawn of global money. Can you see the writing on the wall?


by Chris Knight
Australians are weak, if not outrightly cowardly when it comes to the immigration question, but in the United States things seem to be getting a little better in terms of public opposition. Concern about the masses of central American immigrants illegally crossing the US border led recently to angry crowds of Americans in the Southern Californian town of Murrieta stopping buses of illegal’s/asylum seekers. The buses were re-routed to processing centres in the San Diego and El Centro areas. The crowds shouted: “This is an invasion” and “Why Isn’t the National Guard stopping them from coming in?” “Impeach Obama!” and “Deport! Deport!”


by James Reed
I was waiting for this moment – and it nearly slipped me by. At long last the media decided to name the present generation of little darlings. First there was generation X, the generation Y, and now – wait for it – generation Z. It’s the rise of the “screenager”, computers, texting, social media and other nonsense. (The Australian 1 August, 2014 p.3) One thing though the media hasn’t noted is that they have now run out of letters – it’s the end of the alphabet. Maybe as well it could also be the end of all this madness that makes the modern world the lunatic asylum that it is. The last generation?


Camouflage and Coverup: The Dutch Commission Report on the Malaysian MH17 Crash is “Not Worth the Paper it’s Written On” by Peter Haisenko, Global Research, September 11, 2014 Url of this article:

“Weasel wording” consists in using “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.” … “Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement.” (Gary Jason 1988)

One thing must be stated outright: This report does not lie. It just can’t lie since there is nothing new in it. I myself have never seen such a meaningless plane crash report. What comes as a surprise, however, is the report’s diplomatic, sophisticated choice of words, which loses itself in ambiguous terminology. It was probably planned this way, so each party can continue to defend their version of what happened with zeal.

Let’s take a closer look at this report.
At the beginning we find, as usual, detailed statements about the plane, who it belonged to, that it was in perfect condition and details about the crew. Technical issues or weather conditions are excluded as causes for the crash. Then, it confirms that the flight recorders were virtually undamaged and that they have not been tampered with.

Peter Haisenko
German pilot and author Peter Haisenko

The report continues with the description of the debris scattered over a vast area and from this observation is drawn the amazing conclusion that this aircraft had blown up in the air. I apologize for the slight sarcasm, but I will have no choice but to continue to make some sarcastic remarks about this “report”.

14 minutes of silence in the cockpit is absolutely impossible
It is reported that the cockpit section was probably completely broken off from the aircraft because it fell almost vertically from the point of shelling to the ground and was found at some distance from the rest of the debris.


The report indicates that the damages done by external forces were recorded almost exclusively in the front of the plane, namely the cockpit, and this led to the breakup of the aircraft. So far so good, nothing new. Then there is a transcript of the radio communication between MH017 and air traffic control taken from the voice recorder. At this point the expert starts to ask himself questions. The transcript of the radio communication starts at 13:08:00 and ends at 13:22:02, a 14 minute time frame.

From my experience as an aircraft captain I cannot imagine that during 14 minutes no other dialogues or sounds were picked up in the cockpit by the voice recorder. When the cockpit receives radio transmissions from other aircraft, those are also recorded by the device. As I said, there are no lies, but in all likelihood, not everything is being said.

The published conclusion points out that: “Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.” Everything was normal, but the possible (and very probable) conversation in the cockpit is concealed, as well as radio transmissions from other aircrafts.

High Energy Objects – and other hazy formulations
The conclusion of this report is a prime example of a situation in which one knows something with certainty, but the facts are presented in such a way that nothing is revealed:
The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up.”

Aha! says the astonished reader. We knew that already. We must take a closer look at this conclusion. In fact, it is not a conclusion. The report speaks of possibilities and probabilities: “appears to indicate”, “it is likely”. But this is the less enigmatic part.

The wordings “penetrated” and especially “high-energy objects” are interesting. It remains unclear how far these “objects” entered, or even if they went through the entire cockpit and came out on the other side of it, thus completely “penetrating” the cockpit. The background picture of the cockpit section shown in this report is of lower quality and in smaller scale than the one I provided myself and published in my analysis.

“Weasel Wording”
Again it must be noted: The report does not lie, but the Commission shows less information than it has at its disposal. The term “high-energy objects” is totally “original”. What is this? I myself know this term from astrophysics or quantum physics. Otherwise, I have not commonly seen it in the context of aviation or plane accidents. So how should this concept be understood? I asked English speakers about this. They spontaneously replied bullets, projectiles from a cannon or fast moving freight trains. They also noted that this term is unusual in “normal”, colloquial terms, except in astrophysics or quantum physics. This strange wording leaves everything open.

License to interpretations – The explanation appears different
Those who want to follow the Western description can conclude that a surface-to-air missile discharges “high-energy-objects”. This is precisely the interpretation that I observed in the German media today. Our newspapers are reciting like a creed the American version of the cause of the disaster, issued immediately after the MH 017 crash, by claiming that the present report confirms that the Boeing 777 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

That is not exactly what the report states, but it allows this interpretation – and that’s probably the point of this very flexible choice of words. Everybody can interpret what they want to believe according to their own taste. Especially if they are not native English speakers who spontaneously think of bullets. This “report” is not worth the paper it is written on. This is not surprising, because the Kiev Maidan government had to give their OK to what could be published. The report leaves open everything which could actually contribute to an explanation. The MH 017 could have been hit by a missile, whether surface-to-air or air-to-air. It could have been shot down by a fighter jet or, sarcastically, according to the astrophysics or quantum physics terms, by a large number of “high-energy objects” that rained down on the cockpit from the far reaches of the universe.

You can download the report in the original PDF here to make up your own mind.

More articles on MH 017: Read Peter Haisenko’s earlier article: Shocking analysis for launching the Malaysian MH 017 - Here you will find the high resolution image of the cockpit section, of which only a portion is shown in the report.
Original in German. translation: Julie Lévesque for Global Research

Resurrection, reinvention and linguistics

Barack Obama did the lot. And now he’s taking America to war in Syria as well as Iraq. Oh yes, and he’s going to defeat Isis, its “barbarism”, “genocide”, its “warped ideology” – until the bad guys are “vanquished from the earth”. What happened to George W Bush? But let’s go through this with a linguistic comb.

First, Obama is going to resurrect the Sunni “Awakening Council” militias – a creature invented by a certain General David Petraeus – who were paid to fight al-Qaeda by the Americans during the US occupation of Iraq, but who then got blasted by al-Qaeda and betrayed by the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. Obama has even invented a new name for these militias: he called them “National Guard Units” who will “help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from Isil”. National Guard indeed!

Then there’s the reinvention of the “moderate” Syrian opposition which was once called the Free Syrian Army – a force of deserters corrupted and betrayed by both the West and its Islamic allies – and which no longer exists. This ghost army is now going to be called the “Syrian National Coalition” and be trained – of all places – in Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have given zillions of dollars to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Isis, Isil, IS (you decide on the acronym), Jabhat al-Nusra and sundry other bad guys whom Obama now wants to “vanquish from the earth”.

And then the linguistics. Obama “will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria”. But that means that he is going to “vanquish” the enemies of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, whom Obama was also going to “vanquish” last year – until he got cold feet and decided to leave him alone. So if the enemy of my enemy is my friend – as the Arabs supposedly tell each other – Assad can regard Washington as his new ally. But no. For then came the dodgy little explanations: America “cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorises its people”, a regime that “will never regain the legitimacy it has lost”. But the US has never been asked to “rely” on Assad – it’s Assad who relies for support on Russia. And Assad’s legitimacy is accepted by China, Iran – with whom the Americans are having cosy nuclear talks – and Russia, whose armies clearly do not “hesitate to take action” in Ukraine.

All in all, then, a pretty state of affairs. And part of the problem is America’s non-existent institutional – or national – semantic memory. Obama tells us that America “will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country”. But I recall Vice- President George Bush telling his people after the US Marine bombing in Beirut in 1983 that “we are not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorist cowards shake the foreign policy of the United States”. Then the American military fled Beirut. Three years later, President Ronald Reagan said of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (“the mad dog of the Middle East”) that “he can run – but he can’t hide”. But Gaddafi did hide – and was then kissed by Tony Blair after being forgiven for all his “terrorism” – only to be murdered by his enemies when he became a “terrorist” all over again.

One can see, of course, how difficult these lessons in Middle East history must be for the average American. All these forces of evil being vanquished over and over again, and then – bingo – there’s another force of evil to vanquish. So Obama produces words that are easy to swallow. “genocide”, “barbarism”, “cancer”.

Only occasionally is there a non-sequitur which Americans must ignore. There was, for example, Obama’s rather odd reference to “radical groups” which “exploit grievances for their own gain”. And what would these “grievances” be, I wonder? The illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its concomitant bloodbath? Our continued occupation of Afghanistan? The pulverisation of Gaza by America’s greatest ally?

Obama mercifully left that ally’s name unspoken, although it has a very big stake in America’s newly expanded war in the Middle East – after all, it shares a common border with Syria. But Saudi Arabia, Qatar and all the other Croesus leaders of the Arab Sunni Gulf might not like their people to be reminded that their latest alliance with Washington – training all those non-existent “moderate” chaps, for instance – is going to help Israel.

The clunking irony is that the “Islamic State’s” men do butcher, throat-slit and ethnically cleanse their enemies. Their claptrap “state” and their sadism have turned them into a weird combination of Mickey Mouse and Genghis Khan. Nor, weirdly, has the IS really tried to exploit the anonymous “grievances” to which Obama referred. So totally introverted is their “ideology” (the quotation marks are obligatory) that they uttered not a word of sympathy for the Palestinians of Gaza during their latest bloodletting. But grievances there are. They do exist. Will there be a Kurdistan? Will there ever be a Palestine?

Not a word did Obama utter on these infinitely graver matters. I’m afraid it’s the same old US policy: confronting the greatest crisis in the Middle East since the last greatest crisis in the Middle East. And we can depend on the Americans for that.
Robert Fisk: The Independent
12 September 2014

Obama says US will bomb ISIL in Syria

September 11, 2014 by legitgov
President Barack Obama says the United States is prepared to expand its bombing campaign against ISIL terrorists and launch airstrikes in Syria. "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq," Obama said during a speech delivered from the White House on Wednesday. "America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat," he added. The Pentagon announced that the United States already has conducted 154 airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq

New on Imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159