Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

7 November 2014 Thought for the Week:
Not all Australians went into ‘raptures’ as did the mainline press and party politicians upon learning of the death of Fabian Socialist Gough Whitlam, aged 98 years. Some have far different recollections of the events surrounding the 11 November 1975. “The Crown and the Constitution”: The Dissolution of the Australian Parliament: 11 November 1975, by Professor D. P. O’Connell appeared in "The Parliamentarian" - January 1976 and was reprinted by the Queensland Attorney General's Department in January 1976.
The Crown and The Constitution.htm

The following postscript was added with much of the material taken from an article by Eric D. Butler written before Christmas 1975.

The People sacked Gough Whitlam on the 13th December 1975.
The 1975 Federal Election occurred after one of the most dramatic periods in Australia's political history. The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the twice-elected Whitlam Government on 11th November 1975, after a constitutional confrontation that followed the refusal by the Opposition Liberal and National Country Parties in the Senate to pass the annual budget. Gough Whitlam was not sacked from the Parliament… his commission to advise the Governor General was withdrawn under the provisions of The Australian Constitution. It was not a “Constitutional” problem but a political party power struggle and the provisions of The Constitution were used to resolve the problem by giving the Power back to the people by way of an election.

A New or False Dawn for Australia?
The most heartening aspect of the Federal Election results is that they proved that the instincts of the Australian people are still relatively sound. But more than sound instincts are necessary to save a people from disaster; they must be reflected in sound policies. The massive electoral backlash against the Whitlam Government was not only a condemnation of the continuing high inflation and associated problems, but was a violent reaction against the style of the Whitlam Government. In May of last year a bare majority was still prepared to give Whitlam "a fair go" unconvinced that Mr. Bill Snedden had any real answers to their problems. But as the overseas jaunts continued, jobs for the boys (and the girls) were the order of the day, the Morosi affair was defended, and the loans scandal developed, decent Australians became increasingly nauseated.

The decisive Senate vote for Mr. Brian Harridine, the former Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council expelled from the Labor Party, provided further striking evidence of the revolt of many Labor voters. Mr. Harridine said after his election as an Independent that the Labor Party had been destroyed because it had become the mouthpiece of the Communist Left. "The Whitlam Government tried to set up the leftist ideologies' corporate welfare State and the people rejected it", he said. Mr. Harridine went on to say that "I will be using the Senate's powers to the best of my ability to ensure that the Senate, the States' House, carries out its function of protecting the States." The victory of Brian Harridine was undoubtedly one of the highlights of the Federal Elections. It was a triumph for a dedicated individual against the Marxist forces dominating the Australian Labor Party…”

Reprinted from On Target, 28 June 2002 - https://alor.org/Volume38/Vol38No24.htm

"I HAVE A VISION!" by Betty Luks

Remember 'iron bar' Tuckey announcing the Liberal's plan ("I have a vision...,") to 'improve service deliveries to local communities' the Liberals plan to bypass State Governments and set up Local Governments to 'run police forces, hospitals and schools'? At the time, Tuckey said the "Federal Government was willing to bypass the States ..." In fact, one unnamed source was quoted as saying: "What do state governments do anyway?" ("Howard's plan gives councils wider powers" Sunday Mail, May 5th, 2002.)

In the light of the above we thought the following snippet would be of interest:
"The present financial agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments must be replaced with a new three part agreement including local government." The speaker "called for arrangements which would make Local Government an equal partner in the Australian Federal system." In fact, "the Commonwealth should make direct revenue grants to Local Government – but on a regional basis."

Who said that? When? The speaker was none other than old Fabius Maximus himself – Fabian Socialist Gough Whitlam. When did he say it? He opened a symposium on outer suburban development at La Trobe University, November 30th, 1970.

The League's On Target reported the event on December 4th, 1970!

The (contemptible) Liberals have now completed their turnaround. But try as I might, I can't quite picture little Johnny as the new Fabius Maximus – maybe Fabius Minimus, or 'fabius minimouse'? However one pictures him, the fact is he has utterly rejected the original Liberal Party's stated beliefs of 1949 and should not claim to be a Liberal.


“Ebola Pandemic ‘dead in the water’!” Water plus salt plus sugar fights off ebola Nigeria declared Ebola-free in ‘spectacular success’ story using simple trick - WATER laced with salt and sugar, and gallons of the nasty-tasting stuff. Doctors who survived Ebola in Nigeria credited heavy doses of fluids with saving their lives as the World Health Organisation declared the country Ebola-free on Monday, a rare victory in the battle against the disease that is ravaging West Africa.

In the end, Nigeria — the most populous country in Africa, with 160 million people — had just 20 cases, including eight deaths, a lower death rate than the 70 per cent seen elsewhere across the stricken region.

Officials are crediting strong tracking and isolation of people exposed to the virus, and aggressive rehydration of infected patients to counter the effects of vomiting, diarrhoea and other symptoms.

Survivor Dr Adaora Igonoh said the treatment is not easy. It entails drinking, as she did, at least five litres (1.3 gallons) of the solution every day for five or six days when you have mouth sores and a sore throat and feel depressed. “You don’t want to drink anything. You’re too weak, and with the sore throat it’s difficult to swallow, but you know when you have just vomited, you need it,” she told The Associated Press. “I had to mentally tell myself, ‘You have got to drink this fluid, whether it tastes nice or not’."

Dr. Simon Mardel, one of the world’s leading experts on viral haemorrhagic fevers, said the number of deaths could be cut in half if infected people were taught to properly hydrate themselves and do not take anti-inflammatory drugs, which can actually harm Ebola victims.

Source: https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/ebola-nigeria-declared-ebolafree-in-spectacular-success-story-using-simple-trick/story-fnihoylo-1227097014468


by James Reed
French philosopher Alain De Benoist (2 November, 2013 at https://www.the occidentalobserver.net/author/alain-debenoist/) in his talk “On Identity” has said that the biggest threat to the survival of collective identities today is not immigration (The severity of this phenomenon cannot be denied, nor can one deny social pathologies resulting from immigration”) – but globalism. This is the very system “that kills the people”, that is to say, “the imposition of an across the board system of global homogenization that eliminates all human diversity, diversity of peoples, of languages and cultures”. This ideology De Benoist calls the ideology of Sameness: “The system is associated with the notion of global governance and the global market. Its underlying goal is the erasure of boundaries in favour of a unified world”.

Globalism is the outcome of the philosophy of the Enlightenment which demonised “the notions of ‘tradition’, of ‘custom’ of ‘rootedness’,” and sought to dump these notions in favour of progress and unfolding economic growth.

Individualism, a key doctrine of American conservatism is also destructive of collective identities such as race. De Benoist says that by falsely equating collective identity to “socialism” they are unable to understand that “disintegration of collective identities is directly linked to the rise of individualism, causing the colonisation of their mindset by economic and commercial values and the generalised axiomatic of interest”. American, and also Australian conservatives, defend a capitalist system that ultimately destroys everything that they would wish to conserve. Global capitalism ever seeks more markets and profits and this necessarily involves destroying collective identities. Communism also sought to do this, but capitalism has proven itself to be the superior system at destroying Traditional values because above all else, it encourages greed to flourish.

Capitalism is primarily responsible for immigration: “On the one hand the use of immigrants enables a downward pressure on workers’ wages; on the other, the very principle of capitalism (“laisser faire, laisser passer”) including the free movement of people, goes hand in hand with the free movement of goods and capital. Hence the reason why capital requires increased labour mobility and accordingly continuous migration of labour across national borders seen by capitalists as an obstacle to increased trade. From this point of view the world market must become the natural setting for “global citizenship”.”

Hence in conclusion, it is capitalism and methodical individualism which are the problems. Contesting these requires an alternative economic philosophy, such as Social Credit, which the identity theorists do not discuss. The key though to fighting the immigration/race problem remains fighting the economic problem.

LETTER IN THE UK ‘Herald & Post’

Luton & Dunstable Hospital's new chairman is Rothschild's Simon Linnett (Herald & Post 9/10/14). Our humble conurbation is surely honoured to have such a prominent banker presiding over its hospital.

"Mr. Linnett has enjoyed 25 years of privatisations and 'public/private partnerships' with Rothschild leading that effort for the majority of that time" (Social Market Foundation). Gov.uk confirms that Mr Linnett has worked on the majority of the major privatisations. Although Mr. Linnett is a director of the village store in Wootton, Oxfordshire which sells wholesome locally sourced food he also has global ambitions. He wants a World Environment Agency with its HQ in London. He says that to achieve this, nations must give up some of their sovereignty. This putative World Environment Agency, no doubt to be advised by Rothschilds would oversee trading of carbon allowances, which allowances Mr. Linnett envisages as the future reserve currency of the world, indeed he sees this initiative as a route map to a New World Constitution and a New World Order (www.trg.soton.ac.uk.itc) Unfortunately for Mr. Linnett Carbon Dioxide has not caused the predicted global warming. It is however a natural fertiliser essential for plant growth. The world is currently cooling. Neither has sea level risen (Nils Axel Morner, Stockholm University)

Nathan Meyer Rothschild (16 September 1777–28 July 1836) is quoted thus :- "Permit me to control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws".

I wonder by what process was Mr. Linnett appointed as chairman of the L&D Hospital?
Robert Theobald, Luton, Beds.


Betty Luks.
Recently watched on DVD a Californian lady, Rosa Koire, outline what is the real agenda behind the United Nations’ Agenda 21 programme (found here… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8). The lady has done her homework and puts the audience well and truly in the picture – and will put you in the picture if you take the time to watch/download the video. Rosa Koire tells her audience she is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute which is dedicated to exposing the UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development programme, a “corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan”.

Rosa Koire
Californian lady Rosa Koire

We at ALoR have been reporting on the Plan for many years, the late Jeremy Lee in particular focussed on the United Nations’ programmes, writing about them in “Australia 2000: What Will We Tell Our Children?” (now out of print). By using the search engine on our website and typing in key words dealing with the Plan you will see it developing over the years. But Rosa Koire has done us all a favour by gathering the threads together on this one video – well worth looking at and passing on to your friends. Should you have any trouble downloading it, ring Doug and Jean Holmes (08 8396 1245) to help you secure a copy.

The title is: Rosa Koire at Open Mind Conference in Denmark 2012 “Agenda 21”.
Warning: Don’t think for one minute that our politicians (on both sides) are not up to their necks in it all. They most certainly are! Oh yes, I know they mouth the right words you want to hear when they come to speak at your public meetings – that’s where the votes for them are. But their words don’t match their actions.

I wonder have the nations once under the Soviet totalitarians woken up to what is happening? After 70 years of the brutal Soviet regime they have had a taste of freedom but may not be aware of what is in store for them should the United Nations’ full programme be realised. As I see it: The goal of Globalism is the same as Communism - by other means.

As Graham Strachan explains in ‘22 Steps to Global Tyranny’ – “Globalism is a Third Way, a combination of monopoly capitalism in economics, and monopoly socialism (previously called 'communism') in politics.” We see “the militarist phase of globalisation progressing” in the war-torn countries all round us, while “all the socialist programmes… emanating from the United Nations and its bureaucracies” are being set up through UN groups such as ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).

People such as Alison Walpole are fighting hard to prevent their Local Governments from implementing the ICLEI programmes. Are you taking up the battle for your freedoms in your local area?

Have a look at Rosa Koire’s website: https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/what-can-i-do.html


The main thrust of “Positive Money” is the elimination of private bank creation of credit which presumably would include any private creation of money. So what other source of its creation is left but the State? And if money is used to mobilize resources according with determined policy, who but it’s issuer will determine that policy? He who pays the piper calls the tune.

This whole business of “restoring the creation of money to the Government” has a great appeal to unsophisticated people who know instinctively that something appears not to be right in life and think that if everything could be placed under centralized control our problems could thereby be “fixed” so that no injustices would any longer occur. Such belief seems to be accompanied by an assumption that “controllers” are both omniscient and angelic. Both communist and fascist theorists railed against “usury” and what did they institute in order to "slay the beast”?

A Realistic Means to Decentralize Credit-Power
Douglas understood all of these issues nearly a century ago and conceived a realistic means to decentralize credit-power through credit issued directly for consumption which would at the same time give consumers
(1) automatic access to the entire end product of industry and
(2) a beneficial --rather than direct-- ownership by right of inheritance in the communal capital—which latter has been appropriated by the present banking system, not by their creation of money to monetize the real credit of society, but by their claim to ownership of the credit which they issue against the community’s wealth, which they do not create.

The banking system thereby claims, ultimately, to own the earth. Social Credit would restore that ownership to society—not as a collectivity but to all individuals, as individuals, comprising society.

Philosophy and Policy Conducive to Individual Freedom?
From the above comments you will discern that my impression of ‘Positive Money” is that they promote dangerous centralizing policies. Whether by intent or from an ignorance of the nature of philosophy and policy conducive to individual freedom and a resultant blind obsession with technicality or administration without consideration of end results in terms of human purpose, their ultimate accomplishment can only be the centralization of power and deployment of national resources. The words to describe this are tyranny or dictatorship.

Fundamental issues of real and financial cost-accountancy.
My impression is that like most “money reformers” they totally ignore, and are completely oblivious to, the fundamental issues of real and financial cost-accountancy and the relationship of the one to the other. I suspect that the financial and internationalist powers would probably have little concern over the activities of “Positive Money” enthusiasts and would even encourage them. I am very suspicious that they are either conscious agents or unsuspecting dupes of the Money-Power.

Of course no one other than a Social Crediter would comprehend the underlying issues involved here—for the simple reason that they have never been introduced to Social Credit and know nothing of either its analysis or core policy of decentralizing credit-power and the philosophy which motivates its policy.

Policy Devoid of Philosophy? Impossible!
Some “practical” people (notably so-called “economists”) avoid philosophy as being irrelevant to functional human activity. I am afraid that policy devoid of philosophy is simply impossible. It is simply inherent in the nature of reality that all policy has its antecedent philosophy--regardless of disclaimers attempting to suggest otherwise.
Further reading: https://alor.org/Library/The%20Pyramid%20of%20Power.pdf


from M. Oliver Heydorn Ph.D.
The following review of my booklet The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching was recently published by James Reed in Australia. While I harbour grave doubts regarding Francis: http://biblefalseprophet.com/, Mr. Reed has provided a very good summary of some of the major points that are presented in the booklet. I should also point out that while Douglas and many other major Social Crediters (I don't know about 'most') have been Protestants, their Protestantism has often been of the Anglican or Anglo-Catholic persuasion. This particular wing of Protestantism is a lot more 'catholic' in its social and indeed general spiritual orientation than it is protestant.

I've taken the liberty of reproducing Reed's excellent review below:

I may be proved wrong: there could well be hope for Catholicism! As reported in On Target, 27 June 2014, Pope Francis has attacked the global economic system, proclaiming that it puts money ahead of the well being of people, profits from war in a Mother Courage fashion, and readily throws the young on the scrap-heap of the economy. Some countries have a youth unemployment rate of over 50 percent, which is a shocking abandonment of the future. I am also extremely impressed by Dr. M. Oliver Heydorn, who along with his Social Credit Economics, a massive treatise, has a little book The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching (2014). Although Major Douglas (1879-1952) was a Protestant, as have most other social credit founders been (e.g., Eric D. Butler), there have been, especially in Canada, a grand tradition of Catholic social crediters, in particular associated around the journal Michael. It is quite appropriate to associate a “warrior” angel, with a movement which hopes to change the world.

In his preface to The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Teaching Dr. Heydorn points out that our present economic system is intrinsically dysfunctional, and consequently “economically, politically, culturally, and environmentally unsustainable”. Thus “we are on the path to global disaster (and have been for a number of centuries)”.

Social Credit, harnessed by the world’s Catholics could be just the thing which turns the steamroller of disaster around in ‘the nick of time’.

Although one can be a proponent of Social Credit without being a Catholic and vice versa, the reforms and policy of Social Credit mesh precisely with the philosophical principles of Catholicism. Douglas himself recognised that the Roman Catholic position on economics was an “essentially Christian outlook”. Writing in The Development of World Dominion Douglas observed: “Social Credit is Christian, not primarily because it was designed to be Christian, but because it was painstakingly ‘dis’-(un)-covered reality. If Christianity is not real, it is nothing; it is not ‘true’, it is Truth.

Catholicism and Social Credit are both opposed to the doctrines of materialism (dialectical materialism) and class struggle, the suppression of private property and enslavement and subordination of the individual that socialists/communists embrace. A theological commission established by the bishops of Quebec in the late 1930s, concluded that Social Credit was not a form of socialism or communism. The Catholic Church in and of itself does not have the economic authority to pass judgement on economic doctrine itself (and hence on the economic soundness of Social Credit), but only on broad philosophical orientations. However, the theological commission determined that Social Credit was consistent with core Catholic principles such as the dignity of the human person, the maintenance of the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity.

The primacy of the individual theme runs through the works of C.H. Douglas and other Social Credit giants such as Eric Butler. The idea is that economic and political systems should be the servants of the people and not the other way round as it is today in our economic system. Likewise for the principle for the common good, or the Law of Love, as Matthew 22.39 expresses: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Sound social association promotes the good of all persons and the whole man. Douglas believed that the aim of Social Credit was to create “a society based on the unfettered freedom of the individual to co-operate in a state of affairs in which community of interest and individual interest are merely different aspects of the same thing”, as Douglas put the matter in his “Economic Democracy”.

The principle of subsidiarity is based on the virtues of decentralisation, of not doing something with a bigger social unit that can be done with a smaller one. Catholicism thus must oppose the modern world of economic globalisation and political centralisation and Social Credit certainly does oppose this. Douglas in “Economic Democracy” summed it up concisely in saying: “We must build up from the Individual, not down from the State”. Social Credit also serves to preserve that most fundamental unit of society, the family, hence supporting the broad decentralisation principle. Women who stay at home would have their house work economically and socially recognised.

The solidarity principle balances the principle of subsidiarity, rendering it consistent with the common good principle so that decentralisation would not allow individuals and groups to benefit at the expense of weaker individuals and groups. Both principles are needed to operate together to achieve the common good. Douglas recognised that people in society are interdependent and on that basis he rejected the individualism of liberalism which ultimately led to more powerful individuals dominating less powerful individuals. Further, Social Credit in allocating a National Dividend, which gives each individual a share in communal profits, affirms the dignity of the individual.

Eliminating the monopoly of credit and equalising the flow of final prices with sufficient consumer purchasing power means that, as Dr. Heydorn puts it, “No longer would an elite group of financiers be in a position to usurp the unearned increment of economic association in their own interests and at the illegitimate expense of the rest of us”. (p.17) The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching is an excellent, easy to read book, backed up by numerous quotations and sources. All of those seeking an end to financial tyranny would do well to read this book.

James Reed’s book review… https://thecross-roads.org/index.php/political-science/5-catholic-teaching-and-the-economics-of-social-credit-james-reed

Source: https://www.socred.org/blogs/view/a-review-of-the-economics-of-social-credit-and-catholic-social-teaching

Who Controls the People’s Credit is the Core Issue

"Practically everyone of the theories which Marx had welded into the Communist Manifesto had been tried out experimentally and all, with the exception of the Co-Operative Movement, which is mainly the child of Robert Owen, whose psychology was correct, had failed completely. Had, of course, the Co-Operative Movement obtained control of its own credit, which it never did, and never tried to do, it would inevitably have developed into a completely successful social and economic system."
C.H. Douglas in “The Big Idea

Financial Credit – Created by Banking System – Against the Real Credit of the Nation

Read further here… https://alor.org/Library/Social%20Dynamics.htm


While we republish part of AUSBUY’s media release “Chinese to buy 40 to 50 farms in Victoria including the Glenormiston Agriculture College” we have to say it is not enough complaining about what China is doing if Australian companies don’t delve deeper. Unless they clearly explain what is the goal of Agenda 21to their clients/readers, and take up the battle for our freedoms, they are really just part of the problem not part of the solution. AUSBUY asks: What is wrong with our Governments that they would consider allowing the Chinese Government’s State-owned enterprise to buy 40 to 50 dairy farms, and the Victorian State Government to then lease the Glenormiston Agricultural College to them to train their people, who would enjoy private accommodation for 150 people. Yet the Victorian State Government stopped funding for this facility, and Melbourne University and TAFE did not manage it well, leaving farmers with no access to this asset.

The long established Black family have farmed in the area for generations and donated the land and College to the State to be used in the interests of Australian agriculture and our farmers, and that it remained as an Agriculture College. No Australian government is entitled to give priority to off shore interests as appears to be the case here.

If Australia is to thrive again why would we sell these dairy farms to the same country we are in a rush to sign Free Trade Agreements, so they effectively sell to themselves. Our Governments seem to consistently give priority to off shore interests. We may be "showing off" time at the G20, but “open for business” means whose business? No other developed country is so naïve as to allow the sale of strategic assets that were built by our own people to other countries, global companies or superannuation funds. What’s in it for Australia?


Although media commentators in Australia give the impression that Canada has repealed its race-hate legislation, this is not so as there is still an even larger threat to freedom posed by section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. This section makes the expression “hate” a criminal offence, with the convicted receiving two years gaol. At present in Canada Arthur Topham is being tried under that section.

In correspondence he has aptly summed up why any such race-hate law is bad law:
“The belief that ideas are a prerogative of any self-chosen element of society is repugnant, intellectually and morally indefensible and insulting to any citizen who has both the right and responsibility to consider all available evidence, pro and con, on any issue of possible public concern or interest. The crucially important issue is that all citizens must be free to communicate their views and the right of all citizens to do so must be assured. Anti-“Hate” legislation is a transparent political measure meant to serve the interests of its sponsors who obviously are willing to employ almost any form of sophistry, cajoling, deception and intimidation to achieve the suppression of views which they do not like. Each citizen must be accorded the elementary respect as being sufficiently intelligent to assess the validity or otherwise of expressed views.”

In short, the race hate and more general Anti-“Hate” legislation is not a balanced defence of fundamental human rights (which would respect free speech) but merely another round in the great cultural wars.


“Pardon Us For Our Country’s Existence in the Middle of Your Military Bases” – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s Speech at the UN, By Carla Stea. Global Research, 14/10/ 2014

In a courageous and brilliant speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pierced the veil of obfuscation that characterizes too many speeches at the United Nations, and delivered a scathing denunciation of Western imperialism, imperialism that can only be accurately described as global theft. Lavrov, on behalf of the Russian Federation implicitly warned that US/NATO is risking global war in embarking on its campaign to seize and dominate huge territories, while inexorably and ruthlessly determined to conquer and subjugate Russia, having learned nothing from the historic reality that Napoleon’s effort to dominate Russia led to the collapse of Napoleonic France, and Hitler’s attempt to subjugate Russia led to the obliteration of his Third Reich.

Perhaps this third attempt to conquer and subjugate Russia may lead not only to war encompassing huge territories of the globe, but, dialectically, may be the catalyst leading to the ultimate decline of capitalism, an economic system which thrives almost entirely on imperialism, and is undergoing a possibly terminal crisis, as described by the French economist, Thomas Piketty in his best-selling work “Capital in the 21 Century”. In desperation, dysfunctional Western capitalism is lashing out recklessly and irrationally, unwilling and unable to preclude the disastrous consequences of its myopic policies. And one possible consequence of current US/NATO policies is thermonuclear war. Lavrov stated: “The U.S.-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and human rights within individual countries, acts from directly opposite positions in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN Charter and trying to decide for everyone what is good or evil.”

“Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its own interests. Military interference has become a norm – even despite the dismal outcome of all power operations that the U.S. has carried out over the recent years. The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, attack against Libya and the failure of operation in Afghanistan. Only due to intensive diplomatic efforts the aggression against Syria was prevented in 2013. There is an involuntary impression that the goal of various ‘colour revolutions’ and other projects to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.”

“Today Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there has revealed the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area. The West has embarked upon the course towards ‘vertical structuring of humanity’ tailored to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they declared victory in the Cold War and the ‘end of history,’ the U.S. and EU have opted for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without taking into account the balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe […] NATO enlargement to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given earlier. The instant switch of NATO to hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its cooperation with Russia even to the detriment of the West’s own interests, and additional build up of military infrastructure at the Russian borders – made obvious the inability of the alliance to change the genetic code it embedded during the Cold War era.”

“The U.S. and EU supported the coup d’etat in Ukraine and reverted to outright justification of any acts by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that opted for suppression by force of the part of the Ukrainian people that had rejected the attempts to impose the anti-constitutional way of life to the entire country and wanted to defend its rights to the native language, culture and history. It is precisely the aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take the destiny in its own hands and make a choice in favour of self-determination. This was an absolutely free choice no matter what was invented by those who are responsible in the first place for the internal conflict in Ukraine.”

“The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations have been undertaken at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down and prosecute those responsible for February bloody events at Maidan and massive loss of human lives in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine. The scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked by the acts of the Ukrainian army in the South-Eastern Ukraine has been deliberately understated. Recently, new horrible facts have been brought to light when mass graves were discovered in the suburbs of Donetsk. Despite UNSG Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of the circumstances of the loss of Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has been protracted. The culprits of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice. Otherwise the national reconciliation in Ukraine can hardly be expected.”

In total contempt for truth and international law, Kiev’s escalation of the Ukrainian crisis is being relentlessly prepared, in an ultimate act of deceit, as Ukrainian President Poroshenko assumes military regalia, threatening Russia’s survival, and, indeed the survival of his own bankrupt country, and is now speaking of all-out war with Russia. Last month Washington pledged and delivered 53 million dollars of US taxpayer’s money to provide military aid to the Kiev regime, which is using the ceasefire arranged by Russian President Putin and the OSCE as an opportunity to acquire more sophisticated and deadly weapons and prepare for another barbarous onslaught against civilians in east and southeastern Ukraine, where the massacre of almost 4,000 citizens of East Ukraine and the desperate plight of more than one million refugees followed the “secret” visit to Kiev, (under a false name) of CIA Director John Brennan last April.

But perhaps the most brazen announcement of US/NATO intent to inflict further carnage upon the citizens of East Ukraine , whose rejection of the Nazi infested and Western controlled regime in Kiev has resulted in Kiev’s campaign of extermination of its dissident Ukrainian citizens, is the return to Kiev this month of the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland. Ms. Nuland was made world famous (or world infamous) by her February declaration “Fuck the EU” while, on behalf of her neocon sponsors in Washington, she engineered the destabilization and overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich, plunging Ukraine into the civil war that holds the potential of engulfing the world in a conflagration which will be known as World War III.

In her October 7, 2014 speech to the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ms. Nuland boasted: “Ukraine this year has received $290 million in U.S. financial support plus a billion dollar loan guarantee. And now you have what so many of you stood on the Maidan for, you have an association agreement with Europe and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.” That “Association Agreement” holds Ukraine virtual hostage to NATO and the IMF, whose imposition of “austerity measures” will further degrade the living standards of the already impoverished Ukrainians. Ms. Nuland brings a Trojan Horse into Ukraine, unctuously flattering gullible Ukrainian students, who will ultimately provide cannon fodder for the war which US/NATO is inciting.

Further on in his September 27 address to the UN General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov states:
“Let me recall a history of not so far ago. As a condition for establishing diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of Moscow the guarantees of non-interference into domestic affairs of the U.S. and obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing political or social order in America. At that time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the above guarantees were put on record on the basis of reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to return to this topic and reproduce that demand of the U.S. government on a universal scale. Shouldn’t the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup d’etat as a method of the change of power? The time has come to totally exclude from the international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some states on others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is obvious if we took an example of the U.S. blockade of Cuba.”

“The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not meet the requirements of the 21st century and run counter to the objective process of development of a polycentric and democratic world order.”

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