Thursday 14th of December 2017

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 18:39


For people like Soros and the globalists; they view the nation-state as a problem, because the nation expresses the will of the people of that nation, and it serves their personal interest, Richard Black, Republican Virginia state Senator, told RT.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and the Fidesz Party Vice Chairman Gergely Gulyás are locked in a desperate battle with the billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros, as well as his ideologically driven campaign to allow thousands of migrants to flood into Europe.

Leaders like Orban say the strategy will lead to the total collapse of a “Christian Europe,” and argue that Soros is trying to subvert Hungary and the rest of the EU.

Hungary's ruling party deputy chairman accuses #Soros of attacking country via NGOs & EU bureaucrats

— RT (@RT_com) November 21, 2017

RT:  What reputation does George Soros and the Open Society Foundations have in the world? What role do they play?

Richard Black: George Soros is an immensely wealthy billionaire. He has an interest in converting the world. He has a very, very sinister reputation throughout the world, and he is viewed widely as being anti-moral and anti-nationalistic. His belief appears to be that we should have a globalist government that dictates to the people and that nations are a sort of an impediment, because when you have national governments – they express the will of the people. When you have a globalist government it simply exhibits the views of the oligarchs and has very little regard for the people. That is the side he is on – he is with the oligarchs, he is not with the ordinary people.

RT:  The Hungarian government and the ruling party have been accusing George Soros of interfering in the domestic affairs of Hungary and other nations. Do you think their claims are valid? Do they have a reason to be wary of Soros’ activities?

RB: Soros has interfered very dramatically in the affairs of Hungary and a number of eastern European countries. But right now his focus is on Hungary. I would certainly applaud the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Orban is a man who gets things done. When he had illegal immigrants pouring across the border into Hungary, he sent the army out, he put up a wall, and within a month he had stopped immigration from crossing Hungary.

I think for people like Soros and the rest of the globalists, they view the nation-state as a problem because the nation expresses the will of the people of that nation and it serves their personal interest. Whereas if you have a one world government than it can simply disregard the interest of the people, and it can basically cater to the very wealthy oligarchs.

I would mention that the background of Soros is a very, very poor one. He is known as the man, who was a currency manipulator, who broke the Bank of England – one of the most powerful banks in the world. He disrupted the Malaysian financial stability back in 1997, and he crushed the Bank of Thailand and forced 600,000 temporary workers to give up their homes and leave. So he thinks nothing of ordinary people. He is willing to crush them out; he is willing to destroy their lives and their livelihoods.

Prime Minister Orban and also the Fidesz Vice Chairman [Gergely] Gulyás have united and have fought very hard against Soros. Soros is trying to subvert the country of Hungary. He does it through these non-governmental organizations. The NGOs – there are some good ones, but there are very many of them that act as a Fifth Column to undermine the stability and integrity of the countries. Often they work in conjunction with covert intelligence agencies – whether it is the CIA, MI6, French intelligence and so on. They act as sort of an internal intelligence agency that is always there when the time comes to overthrow the government. The prime minister of Hungary recognizes this danger. He is not going to stand for it.


Read more:


Read from top...


by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 15:21


Years ago there was a plan, A Clean Break: Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to wreck the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and to re-mold the Middle East. It first involved destroying Iraq, or in the discredited words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.”

Destroying Syria was to be next. And then came Iran. In 2006, columnist Taki Theodoracopulos warned in The American Conservative of the “Clean Break” plan “to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.” Core promoters of the PNAC plan signed an open letter to then President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick and John Bolton, all solid members of the Neoconservative project.

In a short one minute video former NATO commander General Wesley Clark criticizes the plan as hatched to remake the Middle East.  Equally, it is important to remember that the chaos in Iraq (and Syria) was not unforeseen by those who promoted the American invasion. I reported in TAC in 2010 of neoconservative David Wurmser (subsequently Vice President Cheney’s principal advisor) forecasting “if Saddam Hussein were driven from power, Iraq would be ‘ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,’ and out of the ‘coming chaos in Iraq and most probably in Syria,’ the United States and her principal allies, namely Israel and Jordan, could redraw the region’s map.” SeeAmerican Prospect, “The Apprentice.”

Of course, all this was years ago, but the plan remains, supported by many powerful American war interests. To find out who, just follow the money. It’s always a useful rule.

Trump has declared that Iran is violating its nuclear agreement although all the other signatories state that it is in compliance. Undermining the Iraq nuclear accord, first with Washington imposing tighter economic sanctions to bring about a pretext for attacking Iran, is now on the table as Washington’s next Middle East project.

However, the world is different from 20 years ago when the neocon plan was first hatched.  Firstly there is Iran’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear program. A CATO report details all the ways Iran has complied with the agreement including giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantling two thirds of its uranium enrichment centrifuges, allowing international surveillance and other measures limiting its actions for the next 10 to 25 years.

Washington is now finding it harder to force the Europeans to go along with re-imposing sanctions. China is much stronger and might take up the trade and giant oil investments which Washington could force European companies to forego. Iran has a vastly stronger missile program to retaliate against the U.S. Navy and nearby American air bases. Iran is three times as large as Iraq and far less subject to fractional internal ethnic divisions. The pro-Israel lobby is divided although big money American donors still want Iran’s destruction. North Korea’s nuclear and new missile technology make it harder for Washington to demand concessions, while at the same time reneging on its past commitments. America’s trustworthinessis already suspect from having attacked Libya after Libya gave up its nuclear program. And even in Washington there is new congressional resistance to the President’s ability to start new wars.

Read more:


Read from top...


by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 15:09

Britain has emerged as the unlikely first recipient of gas from a sanctioned Russian project after fears of a winter supply crisis drove prices close to five year highs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the £20bn Yamal project on Russia's northern coastline last week. Shortly after, British wholesale gas prices soared to four-year highs when a crucial North Sea pipeline was put out of action by a crack and a distribution hub in Austria was hit by an explosion. 

Now a deal has been struck to bring the debut cargo from Yamal to the Isle of Grain import terminal via a specially built ice-breaking tanker by the end of the month.

Britain rarely receives deliveries of liquid natural gas (LNG) in winter because prices are typically far higher in east Asian markets. However rocketing demand in Europe drove the price for gas delivered to the UK to more than $10 per million British thermal units. This put the UK on a par with Asian gas markets, which are some of the most expensive in the world.

Around 40pc of the UK’s domestic supplies have been wiped out until the new year due to the emergency shutdown of the North Sea’s Forties pipeline, operated by Ineos. Supply from Europe has also been constrained by the explosion at a hub in Austria and technical problems in the Norwegian North Sea.

Despite the upheaval Government officials have repeatedly argued that the UK is not facing a threat to security of supply due to the wide range of gas sources available


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 10:48



In 1990, Western politicians repeatedly assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t expand east of Germany’s borders, but broke that promise less than a decade later, say insider archives from both sides of negotiations following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

Researchers from the respected George Washington University-based National Security Archive, which specializes in obtaining key declassified information from the government, have put together 30 crucial documents that clearly show several top Western officials vowing to Gorbachev in unison that NATO would not expand eastward. Some of these have been publicly available for several years, others have been revealed as a result of Freedom of Information requests for the study


Through 1990 as the two Germanies, and the leaders of four World War II victors, the USSR, the US, the UK and France, negotiated a reunification treaty, signed by the six parties in Moscow in September, the capitalist states tried to defuse Moscow’s fears that a reunified state in the heart of Europe would present a threat to the Soviet Union.

In February, George H. W. Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that in a post-Cold War Europe NATO would no longer be belligerent – “less of a military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability.”

Nonetheless, Baker promised Shevardnadze “iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.” On the same day in Moscow, he famously told the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move “one inch to the east.”

The following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues.

“We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people,” Kohl said.

Later that month, talking with Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Havel, President George H. W. Bush himself said that “we will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying, ‘We win, you lose.’”

“Tell Gorbachev that… I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me,” the US president said, talking to the Czech reformer and former dissident.

The French president, Socialist Francois Mitterand, went further and said that he was not in favor of even a unified Germany joining NATO, something he openly shared with the Soviet leader.

In the end, the Soviets moved their forces out of Germany, and later other eastern European states, without a single hostile incident. Among those going home was KGB officer Vladimir Putin, who was stationed in Dresden between 1985 and 1990.

The promise lasted only until 1997, however, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were invited into the alliance. In total, 13 Eastern European states have become NATO members since then.

Gorbachev and subsequently Putin have frequently bemoaned the West’s broken promise, with the latter insisting that it fundamentally undermined the fragile trust between an internationally retreating Russia and an ascendant US.

Nonetheless NATO and top Western officials have continued to claim that there was no promise. None of the assurances of non-expansion were included in any treaty documents, which means they were just that – words.

“NATO allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement,” the alliance said in its official explainer on its website.

Robert Zoellick, a key negotiator during the reunification talks, has also spoken of the promise as a “misperception,” while former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul has labeled the idea of a reneged promise a “myth” in an interview given last year.

But the weight of evidence now uncovered suggests that these stances are disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

Read more:


The US have always been a country of opportunism and deceit.... What else can you expect from this outfit of pirates, gangsters and thieves?... Read from top



by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 10:38

"The Arctic has traditionally been the refrigerator of the planet but the door to that refrigerator has been left open," he added.

Read more:


Read from top... The Arctic might be the "refrigerator of the planet"  but the Antarctic has been the Freezer... Things are not looking good...


Sydney is bracing itself for summer’s first heatwave, and it might not let up until mid-next week.


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 10:11

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist based in Russia.:

Formerly a socialist-leaning newspaper from provincial Manchester, today’s Guardian is the London-based mouthpiece of Britain’s Oxbridge-educated Liberal elite. After reading its website for a week, I’m wondering if this is the best all that expensive education can produce?

However, its detractors have a different point of view. Spewing bile at“Guardianistas” and the “Grauniad” itself, they brand it an issues-led rag which nobody actually reads. They correctly point out that the Guardian ‘boasts’ the lowest daily sale of any UK national newspaper. This stood at 156,756 copies in January of this year. By contrast, the conservative Daily Mail still flogs 1,511,357 a day, on average. The Mail also trumps the Guardian online, when it comes to popularity.

Guardian online, which also uses content from its Sunday sibling The Observer, was launched in 1999 and used to be known as “Guardian Unlimited.” The name, which sounded like a 90’s pop song, was quietly dropped. Today the site is a strange hybrid of genuinely excellent sports coverage, often overblown features that pander to liberal obsessions, a one-note comment section and the odd bit of breaking news.

After a week, you quickly learn the Guardian’s worldview: Donald Trump, straight men, Christmas, and Brexit are all considered to be really bad. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin and Russia are opprobrious, malevolent and reprehensible. Good things include unfettered immigration, mixed-sex toilets, and Tony Blair.

Divided loyalties

At the same time, the Guardian seems to oppose the British royal family, but still endlessly writes about their travails. It appears to be open to changing its stance on the future of the monarchy provided a future King comes out as gay. Or if Prince Harry starts a trend of Windsors marrying people of color. Or both.

Now, I’m a fairly open-minded and tolerant fellow, but a couple of days into this experiment, I was on the verge of switching to the Daily Express or Breitbart for a bit of balance because the Guardian is equally biased, from the opposite end of the spectrum, as those widely derided outlets. And its messaging is just as relentless.

Try some of these headlines, from the opinion section, for size:

“End all immigration controls - they’re a sign we value money more than people”

“Would a gay monarch cure the church of its homophobia”

“If Meghan Markle represents the “mixed-race” community, what about me?” (a lot of Guardian articles start from the theme of 'what about me?')

“Can Harry and Meghan make Britain whole again”

And this example. Where neo-liberalism is explained by blaming long-dead people, who'd never heard of Margaret Thatcher:

“How Neolithic farming sowed the seeds of modern inequality 10,000 years ago.”

Followed by a piece passing the buck for climate change to a continent which largely came to the industrial revolution more than a hundred years after England.

“The West can’t fix the climate crisis. Asia will have to do it.”

But this is only the political stuff. When we move onto “identity” issues it gets even worse:

“The “arm vagina” - Hollywood’s latest form of female self-flagellation”

“To those who oppose gender-neutral toilets: they’re better for everybody”

“My daughter needs plastic surgery - how can I tell her”

“Emma Cline’s plagiarism suit - just another story of a man acting terribly” (because it’s"the latest example of men thinking women owe them it all")

“My problem with Viagra? It feeds men’s obsession with macho performance.”

And my personal favorite: “Of course pets need Christmas presents - but why get swanky with them.” Presumably, because expensive gifts may distract Fido and Fluffy from understanding the true meaning of Christmas.

Talking down

Remember the above is only a selection from one week, but consuming this sort of nonsense day in, day out for a few years, has to have a serious effect on mental well-being. An acquaintance of mine in Ireland used to describe the Guardian as "the paper for people a little bit wrong in the head," but it’s hard to know whether they were born that way or excessive exposure to the "Graun" caused the malaise.

The Guardian doesn’t restrict itself to social and political issues, though. It also tries to lecture its readers on more trivial matters, like how to eat beans on toast. Because these numpties would insist on an etiquette or way to "correctly" eat the peasant’s food.

Toward the end of my week, I was searching for an article that perfectly displayed the Guardian’s relentless bias. And then the bleeding hearts of King’s Cross dropped a gift into my lap, by publishing a hilariously one-sided story from my regular beat, which is Russia.

The Moscow correspondent had visited Siberia to follow Russian protest leader, anti-corruption campaigner and Western-media darling Alexei Navalny on his tour of the country. And his, predictably, gushing profile was based on the writer’s conversations with Navalny's young supporters in the town of Kemerovo.

The standpoint chronicles how the “opposition politician’s campaign gathers steam.” Which, given Navalny is only polling at 2 percent in Russia, is like editorializing from a parallel universe. The text falsely presents him as a liberal, while ignoring his hardline ultra-nationalist views. Which fits with the Guardian’s long-standing habit of presenting all of Putin’s opponents as saints, no matter their real backgrounds. A fetish which sees bandit capitalists and corrupt ex-officials, who have done a runner with their filthy lucre, rebranded as modern-day Sakharovs.

Furthermore, when describing a meeting staged by “Ksenia Pakhomova, a bright-eyed, garrulous 23-year-old” the author admits how “all but one of the eight attendees was under 18.” Which is the legal age for voting in Russia. Now, forgive me for using common sense, but what sort of editor regards feedback from kids who can’t even cast ballots as a legitimate way of analyzing the political situation in any country? And can you imagine the ridicule RT would receive if it used kids from a secondary school in Yorkshire, who are concerned about the environment, to suggest the UK Green Party's campaign was"gathering steam."

This is the Guardian specializing in the triumph of cynicism while accusing Russian media of spreading “fake news” and railing against those it says “deny the possibility of objectivity.” Touche!

Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 09:54


Miranda Devine is unhappy because people are being mean to Shelton with uplifting social media messages such as “Eat shit Lyle”.

In fact, Shelton is on the look out for fresh dangers to religious freedom, such as the rise of gender fluid theory studies at universities and the lingering evils of Safe Schools.

We have Philip Ruddock’s report to look forward to early next year, so religious freedoms remain smouldering on the stove. The former Liberal Party minister, along with Rosalind Croucher from the Human Rights Commission, former federal court judge Annabelle Bennett and Father Frank Brennan are charged with deciding “whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to religious freedom” and if not, what should be done on each.

It’s a strange business, but conservatives only furiously latched onto religious freedoms when the postal survey became a reality – as though same-sex couples gaining rights meant that religious people would lose them. 

Senator Dean Smith’s legislation on marriage equality actually contains more than enough protections for religious freedom.

The new law creates a special category of “religious marriage celebrant”, which includes people who are not ministers of religion but who are free to refuse to marry same-sex couples if their religious beliefs get in the way. Ministers of religion retain the right to refuse to marry people if the marriage conflicts with their beliefs, “or in order to avoid injury to the susceptibilities of their religious community”.

So a minister may be supportive of marrying people regardless of their sex or gender, but can refuse to do so if others in the church are upset about it. The right of refusal even extends to ministers who are “confused” about ambiguities in their religious doctrines.

read more:


Read from top...


by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 09:33

worse than hell

(Scene: The Elysian Fields)

ST PETER: "And what do you want?"

APPLICANT: "To come in."

ST PETER: "Who are you?"

APPLICANT: "Why, I'm Mister Jones."

ST PETER: "Of...?"

APPLICANT: "Rockhampton."

ST PETER: "Well, I'm dashed if I know what to do with you. You can't come in here from Rockhampton, and it's no use sending you to hell."


G. R. Ashton (1898, The Bulletin)


G. R. Ashton: Painter, illustrator and cartoonist, came to Australia at the encouragement of his brother Julian Ashton. Remained in Australia for 14 years mainly working as an illustrator for various newspapers, developing a skill at political cartoons, which he later utilised back in London in an unusual music hall act doing lightning sketches of the likes of Roberts, Buller and Kruger.

He was born and raised in Cornwall, fourth of the five children of Thomas Briggs Ashton (1808-1866), an amateur painter, wood engraver and dealer in artists’ supplies from Philadelphia, and his wife Henrietta, daughter of Count Rossi. His eldest brother was the painter Julian Ashton (1851-1942). After studying at South Kensington School of Art, George joined the staff of the London Graphic at its inception and worked for it as an illustrator for seven years. Sent to South Africa in 1877 to draw the Kaffir War (1877-78) for the Illustrated London News , he joined the Cape Mounted Police and fought in the last Frontier War in 1878 and in the Zulu War under General Buller in 1879. G.R. Ashton came to Melbourne in 1879, encouraged by Julian, who had arrived six months earlier. They both worked on the Illustrated Australian News and together covered the capture of Ned Kelly at Glenrowan. George found that 'there was plenty of work to be done. There was no trouble making from £20 to £30 a week, but it soon went, as everyone spent freely in the boom period’ (Moore ii, p.113). Both brothers moved to the rival Australasian Sketcher , and George also drew for Bohemia and the Illustrated Sydney News . Ashton married Blanche Brooke in Melbourne, daughter of the actor and theatrical entrepreneur George Coppin.


Read more:


by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 08:46

peace americana

Gus Leonisky (c. 2003, vaguely published — can find it on this site)

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2017-12-14 08:43


Gus Leonisky (c. 2000, vaguely published)