...Early Sunday Australia jumped in claiming its jets had taken part in the attack:
Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron is consistent in just one thing – jumping ship when the going gets tough. He announced his resignation in the immediate wake of the 23rd July referendum in which Britain marginally voted to leave the EU, a referendum which he had fecklessly called to appease right wing “little Englanders”, instead of facing them down...
Cameron however committed to staying on as an MP until the 2020 general election, vowing grandiosely: “I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed”, he said of the small island off Europe which he had potentially sunk, now isolated from and derided by swathes of its continental neighbours – with the sound of trading doors metaphorically slamming shut reverberating across the English Channel.
David Cameron has now jumped again, resigning unexpectedly and immediately as an MP on Monday 12th September, giving the impression that he was not in agreement with certain policies of his (unelected) successor, Theresa May...The following day the real reason for his decision seemed obvious. Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee released their devastating findings on Cameron’s hand in actions resulting in Libya’s near destruction, contributing to the unprecedented migration of those fleeing UK enjoined “liberations”, creating more subsequent attacks in the West – and swelling ISIS and other terrorist factions.
How happy am I! As a science/maths high school teacher I always wanted to write an article for this site which had an equation in the title. Now, I can die happy… well, not really. What always puzzled me about the official story of 9/11 was that there were two planes that hit, but a third building collapsed. How is that possible? One plane to one building means no plane to take out the third building, right?
A paper has been published in Europhysics News, which explains that it was a controlled demolition that brought these building down. To quote from a Natural News.com, September 18, 2016 report:
Entitled “15 years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” the investigation was conducted by Steven Jones, a former professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Engineering and the Engineering Institute of Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, author of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: “What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7.”
Hopefully Trump, if he survives, may have a real investigation into the 9/11 matter, considering this sort of evidence and prosecuting the local criminals.
Mike Adams over at Natural News.com, previously said that regardless of whoever wins the 2016 presidential election, the US will be rocked by violence. In his article of September 18, 2016 he says that this has started already: “The Bombings Begin… Risk of Massive False Flag Event Skyrockets as Desperate Establishment Plots to Derail Trump, Halt the Election or Change the Narrative.” That’s certainly a chunky pot of conspiracy in one title.
There was a bombing in New York that injured 29 people, and another bomb only blocks away. Yes, the bombers don’t like travelling much. Another pipe bomb exploded in New Jersey.
These bombings, according to Adams, were by a member of the LGBT community, who is quoted from the New York Post as saying that “This is not the end. This is just the beginning… I will eliminate my targets before it is too late.”
The Russian government’s sincere and diligent effort to prevent chaos in Syria and additional massive refugee flow into Europe, all the while avoiding conflict with Washington and its vassals, has been brought to an end by Washington’s intentional attack on a known Syrian army position, thus wrecking the cease fire agreement that Russia sacrificed so much to achieve.
The response to this fact by the Obama regime’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, reveals that Washington will lie to the hilt in order to achieve its agenda of reducing Syria to the same chaos as Washington has reduced Iraq and Libya. Washington, and Washington alone, is responsible for the war in Syria. When the British Parliament and the Russian government blocked Obama’s intended US invasion of Syria, the Obama regime armed and financed jihadist mercenaries to invade Syria, pretending that the jihadists were Syrian rebels fighting for democracy in Syria. Samantha Power turned history upside down and blames the war on Russia’s intervention at the request of the Syrian government against the ISIL jihadists that Washington sent to destabilize Syria. What Samantha means is that if Russia had not come to the aid of Syria, Washington and ISIL would already have destroyed Syria, and there would be no war.
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, said that in his 40 years of diplomacy he had never seen such a high-handed and demagogic performance as Samantha’s. Churkin seemed to imply that such an unrealistic and twisted response to known facts as Samantha delivered leaves him without hope of any successful diplomatic outcome.
Read further: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45515.htm
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.”
London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, has been on a pro-Hillary Clinton tour of the United States. He has said that immigrants should not have to assimilate: “People shouldn’t have to drop their cultures and traditions when they arrive in our cities and countries.”
Breitbart.com, September 16, 2016, says that the Chicago press had exposed “his connections to radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.” They said: “Mr. Khan has been repeatedly criticised for connections with former Guantanamo Bay detainees, as well as known Muslim extremists in the United Kingdom. His appearances have been widely covered by Britain’s media, but are routinely ignored by the political establishment.”
Those interested in the fate of London, now a minority white “immigrant city,” should consult Ben Judah, This Is London: Life and Death in the World City, (Picador, London, 2016). One third of London’s population has been born abroad, half have arrived since the turn of the century, and 55 percent of Londoners are “not ethnically British.” (p. 3) Traditional British people have been displaced by immigrants. (p. 109)
The native, white European people are ceasing to have babies, thanks to a potent potion of feminism and global consumer society. In Spain, there is an average of 1.27 children born for every woman of childbearing age. There are provinces in Spain where for every baby born, over two people die. Then there is Spain’s economic crisis which has led to a mass emigration of Spaniards fleeing Spain.
Its neighbour Portugal, is just as bad, with its population projected to drop from 10.5 million to 6.3 million by 2060. And Germany has the lowest birth-rate in the world, of 8.2 per 1,000 of population between 2008 and 2013. Any ideas about why this may be so?
“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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
of The Stock Journal
Mr Tony Mahar’s support for Foreign Ownership (Stock Journal 25/8/16) is a view unfortunately held by some senior politicians and businessmen. It is particularly unfortunate in Mr Mahar’s case since he heads the National Farmers’ Federation, an organisation with rank and file members expecting their leaders to promote, protect and nurture their industry and assets.
Around the world, most countries either severely restrict or even prohibit the sale of farmland to foreigners. The Japanese economy has been declining for twenty years and yet I would not be able to buy any of their land. So why is Australia needing to assist the economy by eagerly displaying the “For Sale” sign?
Basically, the Frankfurt School’s task was, as swiftly as possible, to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’.
Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
Christians of a fundamentalist stripe have been warning us against the “sign of the beast” since, well, Adam was in high school. Now, a Sydney woman has had microchips implanted in her hands so that she can control various electronic devices and not carry keys or cards: https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/32444511/thefuturists-placing-technology-/#page1
The news set the American internet community on fire, especially Christian apocalypse types, God bless ‘em. They had thought that all Americans would be microchipped by 2017, but were shocked that we little Aussies are beating them in the rush to become cyborgs, who no doubt will soon find that their minds have been taken over by the New World Order.
Wait – that has already happened!
“If you don’t like this country’s values, and think of another place as your country, then go back there!”
Strong words indeed. But before professional ethnics reach for their magic section 18 C ultimate nullifier weapon, consider that these words are a quote from John Hu, a Chinese Australian and founder of the Embracing Australian Values Alliance. (The Australian, September 5, 2016, p.2)
Have ye of the multicult released the cock on your hair trigger section 18 C gun yet?
John Hu may be just the man this torn and bleeding country needs, too. He will be able to challenge things that Anglo critics have difficulties doing because of the political weapon of section 18 C. He has criticised political donations, noting that in the case of Chinese political donations, “they may donate on behalf of the Chinese government to influence Australian politics, to penetrate and control positions, for example, on the South China Sea – and some of the money may actually be coming from China. In China, business and government work extremely closely.”
How do the bits and pieces fit together? Why is it that the principles of the Marxists, best seen on university campuses, and the global financial elite so perfectly coincide? Both support open borders, one on grounds of “anti-racism,” the other on grounds of profit maximization. Everything the Leftoids do, such as seeking diversity, smashing the traditional family, and creating a Balkanised population, enslaved to a usurious debt economy, benefits the financial elite.
One would have thought that Marxist would be opposed to such an elite, above all else. Yet, their fanatical, insane, mouth-foaming anti-racist mania prevails over all else.
So, the Left must be no more than useful idiots doing, consciously, or unconsciously, the bidding of their financial masters.
Children, beware! Take even one step upon the collectivist road and you will be lost in a realm of ice and darkness.