to THE AGE
     We live in one of the wealthiest, freest and happiest nations in the world, and yet Rob McCasker (31/10) views our political order as ‘a system that continues to fail Indigenous Australians and all Australians.’  He provides no evidence at all to support his claim that the Government’s rejection of the ‘voice’ in Parliament was ‘driven by cheap and nasty politics.’ His speculation is almost certainly groundless.
     Those who wish to benefit the descendants of our first peoples should admit that it has now become apparent that any kind of constitutional recognition carries unacceptable dangers to the stability and security of the nation. No matter how it is phrased, no referendum will succeed. Unrealism about these matters will help no one.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Mark Leibler claims (‘Voice of the people spurned’, 31/10) that the Government’s decision to reject the proposed indigenous ‘voice’ in Parliament has deprived Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders of ‘a form of recognition that might make a difference to their lives.’ How? What difference? What change that cannot be made by avoiding risky tampering with the Constitution? It’s too vague!
     So what if ‘more than 1000 First Nations people’ participated in the Uluru process? That is a miniscule number out of the whole body of the nation. It is not even clear to what extent those attendees truly represented the opinions of other indigenous Australians. Nor is it certain that the ‘voice’ would not have become a de facto ‘third chamber’ of Parliament, one that might receive greater powers under some future ALP government.
     The Government’s decision has protected the integrity of the nation. We want no Catalonian division here.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

     The globalists must be hungry for the fall of the prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orbán.  Although he has warned Europe about the migrant threat, recently he singled out the globalists and speculators,  as threats as well:


“Commemorations help to deal with the realities of today, and the reality is that thirty years after communism, there is again a global force that would make European nations a standardized cluster. […] We wanted to believe that the communists’ dream of making Homo Sovieticus out of Hungarians could never threaten us again, and today we are witnessing with astonishment the globalist powers trying to force our doors and make us into Homo Bruxellicus.”

     If the Left were truly sincere about their opposition to “racism,” you would expect to see colour-blind behaviour, and strict adherence to universalist morality. Instead, we see the antifa, the street version of the Left, simply advocating White displacement, which by the UN definition is genocide, hence White genocide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl8Qz408fUs

     The interesting thing is, that under sharia law, most of these people will not be singing the song they now sing, or maybe any song at all:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.6f8d11bf24a1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/imams-line-up-to-condemn-homosexuality/news-story/b1df7829507ae0a60875a5577bd21a43
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/ugly-truth-about-sharia-law/

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     How amazing to learn that a law professor was able to persuade some netball parents in five minutes that the indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament should be supported (‘Pollies, not people, the real obstacle’, 3/11)! How could the rest of us not see that it’s all so simple? It’s odd, however, that nowhere in Rosalind Dixon’s statement can we find a single reasoned argument justifying the proposed change.
     By contrast, Simon Breheny (‘Decision on “indigenous voice” a big win for liberal democracy’) gives us at least six such arguments to justify the Government’s decision. The most important of these is that any ‘advisory’ voice does not need to be constitutionally enshrined. Adequate recognition can be achieved without any tampering with the Constitution.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     It is to be hoped that the Government’s proposed ‘parliamentary committee process’ to examine other models for constitutional recognition will adopt a sensible approach that is in line with the thinking and wishes of the great majority of Australians (‘Door open for treaties for Indigenous groups’, 28/10). That will certainly mean the complete rejection of any kind of alteration to the Constitution and of any proposal for a treaty or treaties.
     We do not want our nation divided and its stability and security jeopardized by inequitable measures based on sentimentality and foolish idealism. Thus, any process towards further reconciliation must be free of ideological prejudice and couched in terms that will gain very wide approval.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     It is regrettable that Noel Pearson has not learned anything from the Government’s decision on constitutional recognition (‘Prime Minister’s rejection is a kick in the guts for Aboriginal Australians’, 28-29/10). Instead he has resorted to a mixture of emotional special pleading and discourteous attacks on the Prime Minister and Tony Abbott.
     It does not help when he engages in excessive claims (‘Turnbull has broken the hearts of all Australians of goodwill.’) and misleading attributions (implying that Greg Craven, Anne Twomey, Julian Leeser and Damien Freeman are ‘true conservatives’, while ignoring the real conservatives on this issue such as Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter, Greg Sheridan, Andrew Bolt and Gary Johns).
     Pearson has badly damaged any claims he has had to statesmanship.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The chattering class have been screaming loud about Mal Turnbull’s decision to abandon the report recommending an indigenous advisory voice to parliament, along with a separate commission to oversee “treaty-making and truth-telling.” “Truth-telling”? That smacks of something out of South Africa, doesn’t it?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/turnbull-broke-our-hearts-on-recognition-says-indigenous-council/news-story/b4ed8aba821d60321c83461bdd7e9559

Let me quote from the above article:

     The papers have been celebrating the appointment of Senator Lucy Gichuhi, Australia’s first African-born senator. She held second spot on the Family First ticket, and received only 152 direct votes, but by the magic of our political system, when it was found that the election of Bob Day was invalid, she entered parliament, joining the Australian Conservative Party, as Family First no longer existed:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/family-first-bob-day-election-ruled-invalid-by-high-court/8417204

     Senator Gichuhi is opposed to same sex marriage and has this to say:

to THE AGE
     The Government has faced realities in its response to the campaign for constitutional recognition (‘Coalition rejects Indigenous “voice” to Parliament’, 27/10). The Australian people will never sign away their national unity in a referendum powered by misguided idealism.
     Claims that people are not willing to listen to what ‘First Australians’ want are without foundation. No ‘First Australians’ are alive today!
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Andrew Bragg is unrealistic in imagining that ‘no’ voters in the postal survey will suddenly cease discussion of the issue if they lose (‘Fair, focused debate needed as survey ends’, 26/10). Deeply held convictions will not be surrendered because of a political defeat that many will believe was achieved by ensuring that the public as a whole was inadequately briefed on the issues involved.
     He is right to urge a continuation of ‘respectful debate’ and consideration for the opinions of ‘no’ supporters. That is not compatible with his call for the legislation of same-sex marriage by Christmas. For the sake of ethical integrity and national unity, the government, if ‘yes’ wins, should proceed slowly and carefully and not act before all reasonable concerns about children’s welfare, free speech and parental rights have been addressed.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The New York Times is getting heartburn about White nationalism and the Alt Right – that is, people like us:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/sunday/white-nationalism-threat-islam-america.html

     Face it, if you are White and make a squeak about race, immigration, and especially banking and the rule by the global financial elites, then you are a bad guy, according to the cosmopolitanists and globalists:

to THE AGE
     Both the current Spanish crisis (‘Civil war wounds reopened as sides fire up over Catalonia’, 16/10) and ongoing controversy over the events in Australia in 1975 (‘Did Britain have a role in Dismissal?’) are similar in that, behind argumentation about constitutional matters, two different and mutually hostile visions of the political order are embattled.
     Historian Jenny Hocking appears to be conducting her research in order to fire up anti-British and pro-republic sentiment. Both in 1936 and today Catalonian separatism has been used to try to move Spain away from Christian monarchy towards secular and atheistic republicanism. This is accompanied by misrepresentation (‘Franco’s Falange’):  Franco was a Catholic patriot, not a fascist, and successfully kept both the Falange and Hitler at arm’s length after the 1939 Nationalist victory. He bequeathed to Spain the present unifying monarchy.
     History shows that we have much more to fear of an Australian republic going communist than of our present Christian monarchy going fascist.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Kevin Donnelly comments (‘Barbarians at the door after the left’s long march’, 18/10) that ‘the cultural left controls the academy’. Judging by the likelihood of a ‘yes’ victory in the marriage postal vote and by the collapse of the Liberal Party as a defender of conservatism, it seems that the left is gaining control of the nation. Why has this happened and what should traditionalists do about it?
     The industrial revolution, the huge growth of cities, the squalid conditions of urban living, the development of mass education, the psychology and behaviour patterns of left-wing agitators (whose disgruntlement leads to a will-to-destroy) and the pseudo-religion of egalitarianism and ‘democracy’ have all combined to produce this tide of communistic barbarianism.
     The ruthless nature of the financial system and large corporations has provided ample targets for the leftist indignation.
     Only a revival of faith on a large scale can stem the tide. This does not mean adherence to antiquated beliefs and theologies. It means a rebirth of imagination, of attunement of human souls to the beyond, of renewed emphasis on a wisdom that comes from ‘the peace that surpasses logical understanding’.  Poetry, the culture of books, music and the fine arts, protection of the natural environment and the honouring of romantic love can all assist in a renaissance.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     Lives of Our Own (Createspace, 2017), is a brilliant new book by leading social credit theorist and philosopher, M. Oliver Heydorn. The subtitle of the book aptly sums up what this treatise is about: Social Credit, Catholicism, and a Distributist Social Order.

     The tone of the book is set with an epigraph from Hilaire Belloc, published in 1934, expressing his support for the rationality and morality of the social credit agenda, of overcoming restricted purchasing power, freeing people from wage-slavery, and ensuring that people are “to be fully fed, well housed, well clothed and given manifold opportunity for the enjoyment of life.” This is no longer a truism, because our world of 2017 is quickly approaching that of the Great Depression era, with record numbers of homeless and unemployed.

     I am not over-reacting, for words to this effect have appeared in the mainstream press: The Australian, October 18, 2017, p. 11.  There it is said that Xi Jinping is rapidly building China into a 21st century totalitarian state.  It is noted that Chairman Mao’s 30 years, which killed millions, is not viewed with any guilt, but accepted as not inferior to the next 30 years of modernisation.  In fact, Xi has taken Mao further building a society of complete IT surveillance. Yes, that is the nation which is set to build a city on our shores.

     What is done in China will ultimately be mirrored in the world as China hopes to rise to global domination. Xi champions globalism, while not practicing it for China which is the most protectionist country in the world, comprised of state run enterprises.

     We are seeing a feeding frenzy that would disturb sharks, as the liberals go mad over gun control.  It is their time to strike while the barrel is still hot, and smoking.

     In London, with severe gun restrictions, the Royal London Hospital has seen a dramatic rise in gunshot wounds, exceeding knife wounds, with 50-60 victims per year, a 20-30 percent rise in just 2-3 years. The average age of the victims was getting younger, because these people are primarily gang memebers:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/leading-trauma-surgeon-reveals-shocking-extent-of-london-s-gun-crime-a3651761.html

     Following the Las Vegas false flag massacre, the MSM have been rolling out thick the gun banning rhetoric. Prior to this, the gun amnesty was hailed as a success because each of these intrinsic dangerous guns was turned in.

     Guns, apparently kill people and thus are intrinsically bad, unless they are the guns held by the Deep State, to keep 'You in Line'. Then they are good.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     An important aspect of the Spanish constitutional crisis is its relevance to our own ongoing constitutional contest between those for and against our monarchy, since an independent Catalonia would cease its royalist allegiance to become a republic. This is in accord with a regional tradition that goes back to the October 1936 declaration that Barcelona was to become the capital of the new ‘Soviet States of Western Europe’. That was less than twenty years after the communist murder of the Romanovs.
     In both nations the issue of regional and cultural autonomy is used, by a sort of confidence trick, as a means of effecting fundamental change in the political order; and the essence of each struggle is an attack on the traditional Christian religion and culture of the West.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     Remember the rhetoric from Obama et al. about all those poor refugees fleeing to Europe with their latest phones and money, were actually children, not young men of military-service age who could fight for their homeland?  Well, a Swedish dentist, Bernt Herlitz revealed that from his observations of molar teeth of migrant patients, 80 percent of the so-called migrant “children” were actually adults. This revelation led to Helitz being fired and he may lose his house.  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/swedish-dentist-reveals-80-migrant-children-actually-adults-fired-now-may-lose-home/

     This act of war against a native Swede occurred even though it is now openly admitted that the so-called migrant children are adults:  http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681228/child-migrants-age-test-sweden-department-migration-refugee
Their purpose is population replacement of Nordics.