Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia’s drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.
Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism - See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.H1NbQCac.dpuf
Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake' in Deir Ezzor.
The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos’s real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):
“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)”.
The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.
It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

Dear Mr Fisher
A couple of weeks ago I heard you being interviewed by an A.B.C. chap relative to the coming Centenary of the completion of the Transcontinental Railway line at Ooldea on 19 October 1916. I want to thank you for drawing attention to this historic achievement. But, perhaps more importantly, draw your attention to the manner in which the project was financed. The financial lesson of the past should be broadcast far and wide.

The two enclosed booklets (http://alor.org/Library/Amos%20DJ%20-%20Commonwealth%20Bank.pdf) detail how the Commonwealth Bank of Australia of Andrew Fisher, King O'Malley and Sir Denison Miller delivered quite remarkable benefits to our Nation for a period of about 12 years before the private banking cartel effectively castrated the Nations "peoples’ Bank".

Following US President Barack Obama’s dubious stellar performance this week at the UN General Assembly recounting a litany of lies for almost one hour before the eyes of the world, it was the turn of Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to insult humanity’s intelligence.
Like his American ally, who inverted reality by claiming that US war crimes against numerous nations were a virtuous legacy, Erdogan performed a similar spellbinding conjuring trick. In his address to the UN, the Turkish president said his military has rendered peace to the Middle East region by invading Syria last month.

Can you imagine Adolf Hitler declaring to the then League of Nations that Germany had just invaded Poland to restore peace to Europe? It is astounding, when you think about it, how the august international forum in New York City indulged Erdogan and Obama with such polite attention, when they are both responsible for the supreme war crime of aggression against the sovereign state of Syria?
Turkish and American troops are occupying a 100-km wide swathe of northern Syria after they both launched Operation Euphrates Shield on August 24, with tanks and warplanes in support of ground forces.
Read further: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45550.htm

An essential  poll has shown that 49 percent of Australians want a ban on Muslim immigration: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/22/muslim-immigration-poll-result-due-to-poor-leadership-says-tanya-plibersek. The political class replied that this showed a lack of leadership, I suppose to control the objecting plebs. Pauline Hanson, bless her, said that she suspected that opposition was much higher: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/22/pauline-hanson-says-49-support-for-ban-on-muslim-immigration-is-too-low.

It is instructive to consider treasurer and former immigration minister Scott Morrison’s response: “We’ve always had a non-discriminatory immigration program in this country which has produced the most successful multi-ethnic society in the world.” See: http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/poll-suggests-49-back-muslim-migrant-ban/news-story/892bc9b802ec08deab0d2769362ba927.

Sitting on page one of The Australian (September 13, 2016), right next to the story and photos of home-grown terrorist Ihsas Khan who engaged in a 9/11 stabbing, we have this news: “Parents of Migrants to Cost $3.2 bn.” Yes, yet another cost of our out-of-control migration programme.

The $3.2 billion figure is from the Productivity Commission who recommends that permanent visas for parents of migrants be abolished or a greater increase in fees made. Loopholes are permitting masses of people with inadequate skills and English language to gain permanent residency, all at taxpayer’s expense.

US-led coalition jets have bombed Syrian government forces’ positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 troops and "paving the way" for Islamic State militants, the Syrian Army General Command told the state television.

The bombing took place on al-Tharda Mountain in the region of Deir ez-Zor and caused casualties and destruction on the ground, Syria’s official SANA news agency reported on Saturday.Sixty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and over 100 injured in the airstrike by the US-led coalition, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said, citing information received from the Syrian General Command.
Read more here: https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/

"I've never seen such an extraordinary display over American handedness as we're witnessing today"

Ref: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45499.htm

The Russian government is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Russian government keeps making agreements with Washington, and Washington keeps breaking them.

This latest exercise in what Einstein defined as insanity is the latest Syrian cease fire agreement. Washington broke the agreement by sending the US Air Force to bomb Syrian troop positions, killing 62 Syrian soldiers and wounding 100, thus clearing the way for ISIS to renew the attack.
Russia caught Washington off guard in September 2015 when the Russian Air Force was sent to bomb ISIS positions in Syria, thus enabling the Syrian Army to regain the initiative. Russia had the war against ISIS won, but pulled out unexpectedly before the job was done. This allowed the US or its agents to resupply ISIS, which renewed the attack.

Ref: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/us-allies-volunteer-to-share-blame-for-deir-ezzor-attack.html#more

...Early Sunday Australia jumped in claiming its jets had taken part in the attack:

An article which appeared in the journal Risk Analysis, S. Wheatley (et al.), “Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents,” (The Australian, September, 20, 2016, p. 9), has argued that the risks of nuclear power are significantly underestimated because of an under-reporting of accidents. The criticisms were addressed to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is supposed to collect reports of nuclear accidents and rate them.
However, this organisation has no published database, so that this assessment cannot be checked.
The authors of the Risk Analysis paper also claimed that the methodology used in assessment downplays the severity of large events.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which also has the role of promoting the use of nuclear energy, thus has a fundamental conflict of interest.
This downplaying of nuclear risks means that through complacency the risk of a Fukushima-magnitude accident is “more probable than not” in our lifetime. That could mean the end of human civilisation, if a runaway meltdown occurs which is not contained. Apparently that would not be good for business, and migrants are not attracted to post-apocalyptic radioactive wastelands for some reason.

Following on from the Productivity Commission’s report into immigration, some articles semi-critical of immigration have appeared in the generally “Big Australia” The Australian, September 20, 2016: Judith Sloan, “Winners, Losers in Migrant Economy,” and Nick Cater, “Outdated Multicultural Model Swamps Us.”

By way of background, the Productivity Commission, among other things, was critical of the humanitarian migration scheme. The economic prospects of these type of migrants is poor and even after five years from arrival, employment is lower than the general population, all with a cost of at least $ 3.2 billion per year. The Productivity Commission did not embrace the mantra of “diversity,” but instead felt that a “deterioration in the integration of immigrants would be detrimental to Australia.”

An ABC “Curious Canberra” article, “Who Owns My DNA When I Send it Off for Analysis?” September 12, 2016, has again drawn attention to an area where there is a great gap in the law, and where the science is way ahead of policy.

In the United States there have been a number of cases where this issue has been examined, most notably Moore v Regents of California (1990), heard by the Supreme Court of California. There, it was held that cells taken from a patient are not their property and therefore individuals have no rights to profits made by Big Med in use of the cells. The problem with the case is that the decision should have examined the information about the cells rather than the physical cells themselves, so the issue was not resolved. Other US cases have also upheld the rights of Big Med, seeing the social interest of medical research and corporate profits overriding personal privacy.

“Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.”
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria, Politico

"Counterpunch" - The conflict in Syria is not a war in the conventional sense of the word. It is a regime change operation, just like Libya and Iraq were regime change operations.
The main driver of the conflict is the country that’s toppled more than 50 sovereign governments since the end of World War 2.  (See: Bill Blum here.) We’re talking about the United States of course.
Washington is the hands-down regime change champion, no one else even comes close. That being the case, one might assume that the American people would notice the pattern of intervention, see through the propaganda and assign blame accordingly. But that never  seems to happen and it probably won’t happen here either. No matter how compelling the evidence may be, the brainwashed American people always believe their government is doing the right thing.

The Clexit Coalition calls on the Australian Government to conduct a plebiscite on whether Australia should withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty.

The Clexit (ClimateExit) Coalition, comprising over 170 representatives from 25 countries, was launched in London last week. It aims to prevent ratification or local enforcement of the UN Paris climate treaty.


Australia is vulnerable to the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on carbon fuels.

Australia is a huge continent in a far corner of the world, suffering from what that great historian Geoffrey Blainey called ‘The Tyranny of Distance’.


This expansion of the money supply occurs every year; a smaller increase during a credit squeeze, accelerating when the Reserve Bank believes the economy needs stimulating. The controlling mechanism is now largely confined to the raising or lowering of interest rates.

It can also be seen that the creation of Australia’s monetary requirements - which many believe should be a Government prerogative - has been ceded almost entirely into private-sector hands. New money is put into circulation through loans and overdrafts, on which the ‘creators’ earn interest, and charge fees for operating accounts. They are not lending their own capital. They are claiming ownership of “new” money which is practically costless, and which should, in a just system, belong to the community.

A number of academics and journalists are beginning to think critically about China. This contrasts with the cargo cult attitude of the former prime minister who did so much to make Australia a part of Asia with his massive Asian immigration programme – John Howard. Don’t ban Chinese political donations he says (The Australian, September 12, 2016, p. 4) even though “we are living in this quite unique situation where we’re dealing with an authoritarian communist country which has a dominant economic influence in this country.”

That, in my opinion, is just incoherent. An authoritarian communist country is something to be feared, by definition! The Liberals have clearly forgotten the meaning of the word “liberalism.”

Whatever you think about the promises made by Donald Trump, he looks certain, if he wins, of rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). That is a good thing, meaning one less globalist scheme to fight. But even so, for the globalists, who have something of a fetish for the letter T, there is still the TISA a “turbo-charged privatisation pact” backed by Microsoft, Google, IBM, Walmart and JP Morgan Chase.

TTSA stands for “Trade In Services Agreement.” And like the TPP is being negotiated in secret. The TISA will privatise public services, replacing governments with Big Corporations. Like the TPP, there is thought to be clauses in it preventing governments from regulating banks and controlling strategic services.

A group of concerned businessmen, including Dick Smith, put a full-page advertisement in The Australian (September 13, 2016) condemning Turnbull’s “Submarine Fiasco.”

The bottom line: $50 billion will be spent for 2,800 jobs. This is an absurd cost, especially since at present there is not one operational French Barracuda submarine in service. The first version, yet to be launched, is in a ship yard and is nuclear not diesel. The government wants to retrofit and re-design a nuclear sub to be diesel, which has never been done. Good luck with that one, because we will need it.

Behind the political donations debate is the important issue of the rise of China, and how this communist power is choosing to exert its power. Defenders of China typically adopt a “business-as-usual” model, pointing out that US and British foreign investment in Australia is higher than Chinese investment (for the moment), and that there should be no discrimination against china because there is no morally relevant criteria to discriminate between nations in the free trade love-in.

Bob Carr, former foreign minister (The Weekend Australian, September 10-11, 2016, p. 18), pushes this style of argument: “Chinese-Australians are not Maoists and the rulers in Beijing are hardly fanatical jihadists.” Why, if all the criticisms now appearing in the media were correct, then Australia should not have entered into free trade agreements with China at all, Carr says. And in reply to this rhetoric, one can heartily agree: yes, it is a profound mistake.

"Obviously, if nations cannot absorb their own consumer production because of a lack of effective demand (i.e., unencumbered purchasing-power) and are forced to compensate by obtaining excess export earnings and seeking foreign investment it will be impossible to maintain cultural integrity as the financial pressures exert their inevitable and inexorable influence. 

While it makes sense for nations to trade in order to obtain otherwise unavailable and required resources and/or to reap the efficiency benefits of comparative advantage, it makes no sense and is destructive of national sovereignty to be forced into international trade merely to join in a multi-national (and futile) scramble to capture scarce credits necessary to facilitate the sale of domestic production.