to THE AGE
     As James Paterson notes (‘Radical approach to Indigenous recognition will fail’, 25/7), the Referendum Council’s recommendations have 'far-reaching implications for all of us.’ He does not, however, seem to have grasped the problems associated with the proposal for a ‘declaration of recognition.’  From one point of view, why do we need an official statement of the obvious? On the other hand, is it so obvious? Government should be wary of making historical assertions about controversial matters. That’s the stuff of totalitarianism. There is some doubt as to whether our Aboriginals really were the ‘first people’ on this continent or whether they displaced an earlier group. Then again, no present-day Aboriginals existed in time before other present-day Australians.
     And who knows what radical implications future High Court judicial adventurers might claim to read into even the declaration’s seemingly innocuous statement about ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The Coalition will be both sensible and ethical to continue its call for a plebiscite rather than a free parliamentary vote to determine whether Australia should significantly change its legal definition of marriage. Here are some answers to Peter van Onselen’s advocacy (‘Opposing gay marriage vote will hurt conservatives’, 15-16/7).
     There have been plebiscites in our history before and the seriousness of this present controversy demands another, if not a referendum. Moreover, the ALP wants a plebiscite on a republic. Now, while the plebiscite result might not be binding, if it proves favourable to change, it would undoubtedly be honoured by the parliament and opponents of change would not feel betrayed, which would be good for national unity.
     Opinion polls results are not always reflected in actual voting; nor do we want to live under government by such polls.
     That other Anglophone nations have gone one way does not mean we must follow; they might have made a mistake, for it is simply not true that their decisions have been happily accepted by supporters of the traditional definition of marriage. On the contrary, there is great concern at certain subsequent developments and other mooted possibilities.
     Finally, a free parliamentary vote, no matter what its result, would not be a truly representative way to proceed.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     The two recommendations of the Referendum Council for constitutional change should be rejected (‘One idea touted, but it leaves PM unsure’, 18/7).  An advisory body for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be established without any need to tamper with our founding document; and the ‘declaration of recognition’ would be redundant.
     The recommendations are being presented as minimalist, but the fact that the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges ‘a process for treaty and agreement making’ shows that they are really seen by their promoters as the thin end of the wedge. It will not be a ‘heroic failure’ if Australians reject them at a referendum, but just national good sense.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Mark Leibler too easily dismisses the case against constitutional recognition (‘Indigenous voice to Parliament: a unifying idea’, 18/7). The deep concerns that have been expressed by many articulate and responsible commentators that any such recognition would be fundamentally unjust and a danger to our national unity and security cannot fairly be summed up as ‘cynicism and mean-spiritedness’. Nor is the stereotyping of men like Keith Windschuttle, John Roskam, Greg Sheridan and Gary Johns as ‘naysayers and scaremongers’ the least bit credible.
     As for the Referendum Council’s two recommendations, an advisory body of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be set up without any tampering with the Constitution; and the ‘declaration of recognition’ is simply redundant.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     There is a simple answer to a question asked in your editorial (‘Indigenous recognition steps outside Constitution’, 19/7) as to whether the Referendum Council’s first proposal (for a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal advisory body) ‘would presage continued agitation for a treaty?’  Of course it would.  Overseas experience in several countries shows that once the descendants of former native peoples are constitutionally privileged, their claims just multiply.
     You state that Parliament should ‘take advice from indigenous citizens’.  That would include all of us who were born here and have no other citizenship. Moreover, as most of those identifying as Aboriginal have mixed blood, it is hard to see why they deserve any more rights than the rest of us. Concern for Aboriginal welfare is admirable; but privileging them in any way constitutionally would be a big mistake.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     Whenever there is a shooting, the gun controllers call for guns to be banned. Well, let me help them out here, by extending the “logic’ of their argument to the tragic US Minneapolis shooting case of White Australian Justine Damond (Ruszczky?), by Black officer Mohamed Noor: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/shooting-death-of-justine-damond-in-minneapolis-sparks-calls-for-federal-investigation/news-story/2d2486888c0c6d8fa1ca3d8f4bc7df91?utm_source=The%20Advertiser&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial.
     Official information is scanty at this time, but one line of thought has it, that this is a homicide, probably due to the officer thinking that her mobile phone was a gun. He shot first and asked questions later, much later. In due course we may know the grim details, or the story will just slip from news interest, as, after all, it is just an Australian, and conveniently, the police camera was off: The Australian, July, 18, 2017, p. 1

     Say, just imagine if the victim was Black… how many race riots would have occurred by now?  But, White lives don’t matter, so there will be no protests about this.
    My main point is that the gun controllers should now be demanding that police hand over their guns. It would be an excellent example to the wider community. If guns kill, then so do police guns.

     Billionaire globalist, George Soros, who must be close to 4,000 years of age, is working on eliminating paper money as part of his plot to create a single world government: http://www.wuc-news.com/2017/07/soros-ill-eliminate-cash-for-new-world.html.
This comes, allegedly from a Soros-insider, who has said that young handsome George wants to end the use of anonymous cash and have all payments monitored by the state. Wouldn’t be nice for our side to have even one person with his infinite energy and abilities?

     This does seem to fit the picture. The Indians, in the first New World Order trial run, withdrew 86 percent of the cash in circulation and put a cap on cash transactions, as has been done in France. The European Union is moving towards eliminating cash altogether: https://www.infowars.com/soros-insider-banks-ending-cash-to-establish-world-government/.

     Good people of Australia, you have excelled yourself in this one, by doing nothing, so that evil triumphs once more. What have our independents done about this one? 
I have in mind the changes across the country to firearms laws. Under the guise of making the community safer from guns, even though the country is awash with ILLEGAL guns brought into Australia by ethnic crime gangs, who basically rule the streets now:  http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-toughens-gun-laws-in-response-to-shootings-and-gangs-arms-race-20151027-gkk18x.html. The Authorities have lost control of this, and in any case have no ability to control it since organised crime now shades into the government, as it does throughout Asia:
http://theconversation.com/why-the-calabrian-mafia-in-australia-is-so-little-recognised-and-understood-50914;
http://www.smh.com.au/national/from-armenia-to-australia-how-the-mob-controls-the-trafficking-of-ice-into-australia-20160318-gnlwal.html;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/calabrian-mafia-stretches-across-australia-from-murder-to-ecstasy/news-story/a784fdfd62b050eb928092b663918a6b.

     To give the illusion that something is being done, the government likes to crack down on law-abiding, primarily Anglo-Australians. The game plan since Howard’s gun grab in 1996: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoBItG5FMU; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjBhI3NhiY; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5vplwjX-Zo, has been to disarm the lawful citizens while doing nothing real about organised crime, because that would be contrary to globalism and multiculturalism.

to THE AGE
     Michael Cooney may have said that ‘the Queen herself is undoubtedly more popular than the institution of the monarchy’ (‘Insight’, 15/7), but it must be remembered that the person and the institution are not entirely separate. Her Majesty’s prestige partly exists just because she is the reigning monarch; and monarchy can produce leaders of this calibre much more easily than any form of republic.
     This is why the largely ignored case for a separate Australian monarchy should be seriously considered. Wanting ‘our own head of state’ does not necessarily mean wanting a republic and a president.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Matt Ridley entertains and informs perceptively with his take on how insult terminology is carefully coined and then deployed to wrong foot ideological opponents (‘Left leads the right in manufacturing words of mass distraction’, 4/7).  However, his claim that ‘denier’ is ‘a revolting word’ seems over the top. There are those who deny that man-made global warming is occurring and endangering mankind; there are also a few erratics who deny that the Holocaust happened. It’s OK to call them deniers.
     It is a pity, though, that Ridley did not seize the opportunity to point out that most of those who are damned as ‘Holocaust deniers’ are really only Holocaust revisionists. Such historians readily agree that the Nazi regime was anti-Jewish from start to finish and that many injustices and crimes against Jews were perpetrated under its authority; they simply claim that the facts have been significantly exaggerated. What is revolting in this case is not the term itself but its misuse involving a new context of persecution.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

      A court in Hanover has handed suspended sentences to six members of a Kurdish clan who seriously wounded two dozen police officers during a violent rampage in Hameln. The court's ruling was greeted with anger and derision by police who said it is yet another example of the laxity of Germany's politically correct judicial system.

      The case goes back to January 2014, when a 26-year-old clan member, arrested for robbery, tried to escape from the magistrate's office by jumping out of a seventh-floor courtroom window. The suspect was taken to the hospital, where he died. Members of his clan subsequently ransacked the hospital, as well as the court, and attacked police with rocks and other projectiles; 24 police officers and six paramedics were injured.

     If we want to understand Australia’s success as a modern nation, as one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies, we must look back to the origins of our institutions. Civil society, liberal democracy, constitutional government, the rule of law and individual rights are all essential features of our free society.
     Institutions provide an important foundation for a society to attain its full potential. They are a legacy to this generation, passed down by those who have sought freedom of conscience, religion, speech, and the right to participate in politics and public debate.
     As part of the Foundations of Western Civilisation Program, the Institute of Public Affairs has produced a series of short films which explain the important role that British Institutions have played in shaping our nation.

The Magna Carta

     Former PM John Howard – remember him? – wrote in The Weekend Australian, June 24-25, 2017, p. 20 about “Threats Anew to Freedom of Religion, Speech.”  Oh, the irony of someone, claiming to be a conservative, who did nothing to roll back section 18C, and who advanced the agenda of mass Asian immigration, to such an extent that he lost his own seat: Peter Wilkinson, The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes, (2007).

But, that is water under the bridge now, as the once good ship Oz, slowly sinks, from taking on too much water. The pumps have long ago failed.

     Here is a good article with all the links dealing with the on-going bank collapses in Europe. For example, the sixth largest bank in Spain, Banco Popular, failed in early June this year, with emergency funds being offered, which were burnt through in a mere two days. A sale was eventually arranged by frantic EU regulators to Santander, which held off the evil day of financial reckoning for a time. Other Spanish banks are facing similar vulnerabilities, such as Liberbank.

    Spain is just the beginning. The Italian financial system is unhealthy, showing that all of that pasta and high carb food, really is not that good for you. That site is primarily a financial one, but it has this interesting observation about the ultimate breakup of that artificial construct, Italy:

     I am now pleased to be the official US correspondent for the League, and I will work with your writer and ex-American Chris Knight to bring you all the rich absurdity from the land of the once-free. Remember, if it happened here, it will soon be happening in your neck of the woods.

     We all know that the Left has been waging a war against Trump supporters, even though Trump has proved to be the Great Disappointment. I am not surprised given that he came from the same swamp as the rest, but there was no choice supporting him and getting caught up in the hope that maybe, just maybe, there could be a political solution. But, there never can be. History will be decided the way it has always been worked out, because blood lubricates its grim wheels.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Brendan O’Neill’s warning about the possible sabotage of Brexit (‘The soft lie that seeks to silence millions of voices’, 17-18/6) reminds us that not everything publicly labelled ‘democracy’ in fact happens with the genuine consent of the majority of the people.  If he is correct to construe the ‘Leave’ referendum victory as the rejection of ‘the entire establishment’, then it is no surprise to hear that that establishment is fighting dirty to preserve itself.  Human history is littered with such self-interested coups from elites.
     Britain needs another Archbishop Stephen Langton to fend off tyranny - or a homegrown Alexander Solzhenitysn to describe unequivocally what is happening and thus warn the masses. We in Australia could do with someone like them too!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     If you follow world events, then you can be excused for having mixed feelings about the confused signals emanating from the ‘halls of power’ via the devious mass media.  Donald Trump has upset the ‘climate change disciples’ (it is a cult!) by honouring his election promise to withdraw from the ‘Paris Climate Agreement’ signed by his predecessors.
     Why shouldn’t he withdraw from the agreement when it was a factor in his election commitment to the American people?

     In Australia, this raises many points for discussion if you believe we live in a democracy. There are issues which must be understood for a harmonious relationship between diverse peoples and the progress of our Civilisation.  Can an elected government bind all future elected governments to its wishes for ‘time immemorial’? I don’t think so as this is a recipe for stagnation!

     Just as the big stores have end of financial year sales, the government periodically has a national gun amnesty, so criminals and terrorists can hand over their hard-earnt guns. Ha! Australia is awash with illegal guns, in the hands of the underworld, and it is just plain stupid to think that they would surrender anything:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-toughens-gun-laws-in-response-to-shootings-and-gangs-arms-race-20151027-gkk18x.html
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/as-many-as-600000-illegal-guns-in-australia-20161020-gs74ay.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/automatic-pistols-from-southeast-asia-spotted-on-local-black-market/news-story/a1c16504680a792cfaf0566aecaa0e3e

     The claim that a national amnesty would do anything to stop terrorism is beyond ridiculous, as even mainstream sites have recognised http://theconversation.com/a-national-amnesty-will-not-rid-australia-of-violent-gun-crime-7956.
 In fact, as I see it, all of this is just about the social control of ordinary citizens, with the hope of removing more guns from the ordinary people.  It will make it easier for the white genocide waiting down the tracks, when TSHTF, and TEOTWAWKI (The end of the world as we know it).

     The comments in an interview given recently by Prince Harry to the American magazine Newsweek in which he stated that: “the heavy burden which comes with the throne isn’t something anyone aspired to” are being broadcast - and often misinterpreted - on Australian television and other media.
     In many ways, Prince Harry is quite correct. To be monarch is an awesome burden. Not only does one have to be on call 24 hours each day, read through State papers, meet with ministers to be consulted and to advise, attend various events and functions almost every day but also, worse, the monarch and heirs are in the public spotlight continuously.

     The Queen has carried on her duties for over 65 years immaculately. Even though the 24/7 news cycle occurred only more recently during her reign, Her Majesty has taken it all on board and has unflinchingly continued to serve the people.
     Service and duty is today what the monarchy is all about. As Prince Harry said in his interview “Despite the challenges that come with it” the monarchy was “a force for good”.
     Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy has upheld our democracy for well over a hundred years during which time so many countries became republics and then dictatorships.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Noel Pearson is fantasising when he claims (‘Token change is not an option for Pearson’, 16/6) that the establishment of the Constitution in 1901 has led to a ‘lack of structural power’ for our Aboriginals that ‘cascades down into the daily lives on the streets of communities.’  There are plenty of reasonable life opportunities for today’s Australians who happen to have Aboriginal blood, so there is no need at all to create national political division where there is none. It would be statesmanlike for Pearson to admit that any kind of constitutional recognition is against the interests of the great majority of today’s Australians and to rededicate himself to uncontentious efforts to improve Aboriginal welfare.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic