to THE AGE
     Fred Chaney is idealistic but not realistic (‘Don’t fear the T-word’, 8/6). All advocacy of a treaty between our Aboriginals and other Australians implicitly means support for an eventual partition of the continent into two nations.  Australia has already moved too far in that direction with the Mabo judgment, plucked out of the air by judicial adventurism, and subsequent land agreements with, as Chaney notes, ‘peoples, collectives, not individual Aboriginal people’.

     Constitutionally we need to treat all Australians as equal, for reasons of equity, national unity, social stability and political security in dealing with the rather threatening world situation that is developing.  Our governments are right to seek to improve Aboriginal welfare - the benefiting of Aboriginal individuals seen as disadvantaged Australian citizens.
NJ, Belgrave

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     God does not write books, nor does he dictate them word for word through human intermediaries. This applies to the Bible as well as the Koran.  So merely advocating metaphorical rather than literal interpretation (Letters, 8/6) is not sufficient to deal with the current religion-based political crisis.

     On the other hand both these holy books have many passages that are profound and beautiful, which may well be the result of exceptional inspiration. Thus, asserting, as does Jim Campbell (8/6), that ‘there are no arguable circumstances’ under which the Koran should ‘play a role in shaping the character of any Australian citizen’ is an unhelpful and extremist approach.
     Islam itself contains the solution in its doctrine of shirk - that nothing in creation can be equated to God. Muslims generally need to accept that this applies to their prophet, their book and their tradition. Ditto for Christians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     So the Maritime Union and others are agitating for acceptance of the divisive Uluru Statement (‘Unions lead push for Uluru proposal’, 12/6). Nothing new here! As former communist Geoff McDonald wrote in his 1982 book ‘Red Over Black’, nearly 70 years ago communist leaders were saying how the first step towards making Australia a communist nation would be to establish black republic areas on our continent. These included J. B. Miles, Lance Sharkey, Barnard Taft and the Aarons brothers.
     And what would it mean if we went communist? Eventual subjection to an international tyranny operating through the UNO. In whose interests would that be? Certainly not those of our Aboriginals!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The three London terrorists shouted, “This is for Allah,” as they went on a rampage, with the new weapons of choice, a truck and knives. They killed seven people and hospitalised 48 others. One Queensland woman had her throat slashed. This is the third Islamic terrorist attack in Britain in the past three months. The mayor of the now non-white majority city of London (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/census-reveals-white-britons-as-minority-in-capital-for-first-time-8405998.html),  himself a Muslim, said that there was no reason to be alarmed and that London is one of the safest cities in the world: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/04/trump-blasts-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-saying-no-reason-alarmed-london-attack/; http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-06-04-mainstream-media-complicit-in-excusing-global-terrorism-as-london-suffers-deadly-isis-linked-attack.html.   After all, as he said last year, terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

     Mike Adams in the article referenced above, is spot on in saying that this is open warfare on Western civilisation: “Western civilization, you see, has become obsessed with self-induced idiocy and political correctness that’s so insane, its political leaders can’t even muster the will to engage in simple acts of self-defense against a cultural onslaught. Western Europe, in particular, is being overrun by radicals who practice an extreme, violent form of Islam that has zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t obedient to their narratives.

     Another day, another terrorist attack. Although I know that global warming is a myth, it is possible that so many candle-lit vigils will be held, that we may find the poles melting and glaciers, well, turning into slushies!! Of course, I jest: global warming, as Don Trumpeter well knows, is just hot air, as conspiracy to stop the West enjoying the fruits of the good life.

     No sooner than I had completed my masterpiece article on the London bombing, sorry, truck and knife attacks, then we have a terrible terror in Melbourne, with an abduction and killing, with the police shooting the terrorist dead: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/australia/australia-terrorism-isis-hostage-killing.html?_r=0. All of this brought to you from the unfriendly people at ISIS Pty Ltd.

     Open homosexual Alt Right figure, Jack Donovan, who had previously defended white nationalism, the right of whites to defend their own identity, http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/12/mighty-white/, has now written a piece: “Why I am Not a White Nationalist”:
https://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2017/05/why-i-am-not-a-white-nationalist/.

     Donovan gives various loosely woven arguments, such as the one that white nationalists, at least in America, are disunited and fight more among themselves than the enemy. They are broken people, who “suck.” No statistical proof is offered to substantiate this, being, like most journalism, based on his gut feelings.

     Marc Randazza , a Las Vegas-based lawyer who  specialises  in free-speech cases, is representing the publisher of a leading neo-Nazi website, Andrew Anglin. Anglin is being  sued for allegedly  orchestrating an anti-Semitic online trolling campaign against a Montana Jewish  family. The mainstream press give no reason for why he chose this particular family to “harass,” but his website gives his point of view. I should add that I do not support the Anglin site, and what he represents, and see  many of his articles as alarming and fanatical. But, as a free speech advocate I still have an interest in the case, which raises fascinating points of law.

     According to Mr Randazza:
“Everybody deserves to have their constitutional rights defended… Nobody needs the First Amendment to protect Mr. Rogers. That’s not what it’s there for.”
See: http://www.timesofisrael.com/first-amendment-lawyer-defending-neo-nazi-website-publisher/; https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/09/us/ap-us-internet-trolling-lawsuit.html?_r=0.
The point is that real free speech laws protect unpopular speech.

     We need to pay attention to what happens overseas so much, because often various countries are the testing grounds for what is coming our way.
    Thus, in Sweden, for example, school girls as young as 16, are frequently sexually assaulted by the migrant other, but authorities call them “racist” for complaining: http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/sweden-16-sexually-assaulted-girls-called-racists-islamophobes-complaining.html/; https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=sv&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.friatider.se/joakim-lamotte-nyanl-nda-sextrakasserar-skolflickor-men-ingen-g-r-n-got.

     Question: if it were your daughter, or your wife, what would you do? My guess is that it will not be long before decisions like this become part of our daily life, along with these products of indiscriminate mass migration and demographic swamping: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/03/europe/london-bridge-incident/index.html. It is only a matter of time before a dirty nuclear bomb is exploded in a major city. The mass migration class need to explain how many of this will increase diversity, when the diverse are blown to pieces and the pieces irradiated: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-terrorism/overview#.WTOK1dp95aQ.

     One would have thought that people in the spy business would be fully trained in spying things. Things like how to use a pen and note pad, or today, a computer notebook, and drive a car. It would also be assumed that a spook would have hand-to-hand combat training, for when the going got tough.
It has been reported that ASIO agents will now be trained in hand-to-hand combat: The Weekend Australian, June 3-4, 2017, p. 1. Good, but we should ask, compared to America’s CIA, what has taken them so long to get around to this!

     The article referred to here: https://survivalblog.com/new-frontier-compact-x-liberal/#more-42852, is from the US and is a controversial creative reworking of part of its constitution from a Christian traditionalist perspective.

     Its goal is to provide an alternative framework to the existing undermining which the legal new class have done to the US constitution. What interests me is the criticisms following the article by readers which detail all the difficulties in trying to put together a Christian constitution, or even one that escapes the attacks of the new class lawyers:
see further: https://survivalblog.com/the-rawles-rationale/#more-42542.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     June Oscar’s defence of constitutional recognition (‘Treaty “nothing to be afraid of”’, 7/6) is unconvincing. The ‘1200 indigenous land-use agreements nationwide’ she refers to are not treaties between groups claiming independent sovereignty and do not threaten the political unity of Australia. The demands of the Uluru Statement from the Heart do and must be rejected.

     More Australians need to engage in political action on this issue. Overseas history shows that politicians of all parties often betray the real interests of their constituents; and revolutionaries are adept at using gradualism to fool majorities. We need a new national movement to safeguard the constitutional integrity of our nation.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The Uluru Statement of the Heart has now been published, which means that the revolutionaries have played their hand and thrown down the glove of challenge. We can now respond as we must.

     Greg Sheridan, a distinguished veteran journalist, has led the way with his opinion pieces in The Australian. In ‘Misguided, squeamish Liberals are failing Aborigines’, (25 May) he wrote: ‘Constitutional recognition [is] extremely bad in principle because [it creates] two classes of citizens…..The Constitution belongs to all Australians. If the state changes the citizenship status of one group of Australians, it, by definition, changes the citizenship status of all Australians. In principle and in practice, this is a recipe for conflict and disaster.’

     For your future reference, here is the text of the Uluru statement which will be worked into the coming Aboriginal constitutional referendum:

ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link Is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
From: http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/uluru-statement-heart.

    Here is the conclusion of the indigenous summit: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-summit-rejects-recognition-pushes-for-treaty-and-voice-in-constitution-20170526-gwe389.html.

     An all-indigenous convention wants to enshrine a “First Nations Voice” in the constitution in a referendum to be held next year. The politically correct compromise, favoured by the liberals and conservatives, of giving a mere token recognition, was rejected. The Aboriginal lobby now means business, with a “commission,” perhaps much like that in South Africa,  a “Makarrata Commission” to “supervise agreements between Indigenous groups and government and a period of truth-telling about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

from THE AUSTRALIAN
     The New Zealand parliament, in its wisdom, decided to enshrine the “principles” of the treaty of the 1840 Waitangi into legislation. This has led to endless litigation between Maoris and the government, and endless payments by the New Zealand taxpayer to Maoris to compensate them for apparent “breaches” of the treaty. Such payments have not improved the lot of ordinary suburban Maoris one iota.

     Defining the “principles” of the treaty has led to endless interpretations and permutations, most never envisaged by the original signatories. Judicial activism has been kept alive and well with attempts to satisfy claimants and quests to define and apply the “principles” of the treaty to an ever-increasing list of injustices suffered by Maori at the hands of white settlers and their descendants. The only winners have been lawyers and a select few Maori elite to have received treaty settlements.

     Far better for all Australians to simply get on with their lives and take advantage of what the country has to offer. A treaty will not be the magic bullet for those living in impoverished, remote areas offering no employment opportunities, and it will not help children being brought up in dysfunctional households, nor will it keep people out of prison who make free choices as to the crimes they commit. Most important, a treaty will divide Australia on race. Do we really want to go there?
MH, Northwood, Vic

     We should not be surprised about an Asian nuclear arms race,  because Asians do not have the liberal cucked world view that has come to dominate our world. Thus, it has been reported that Asian is about to embark on an inevitable nuclear arms race, fuelled by fears of North Korea, but no doubt reinforced by long-standing fears of China’s increasing power and aggression: The Australian, May 26, 2017, p. 1. This will almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange occurring somewhere; recall that India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed sit eternally on a knife-edge: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-nuclear-war-betweeen-india-pakistan-19901.

     Australia, from the time of Mr Populate and Perish, Fabian socialist Arthur Calwell (1896-1973), the “father of multiculturalism” and Asianisation: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html, has pursued a policy of dismantling its ethno-racial Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. If you are 50 years old or more, you would have seen first-hand how this was done, and it is now celebrated for what it truly is, but it was not openly proclaimed as this at the time by the elites: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html. How could “Australian nationalism” be founded on this basis of Fabian socialism, as some still seem to think?  If you think so, then read more carefully the article  above.
Along with this, even the Christian moral and legal framework that past Anglo-Australians grew up with has been slowly deconstructed, brick by brick, so that today not only is homosexuality mainstream, and same-sex marriage likely to soon be law, as it is in America and Ireland, championed by the same class of elites, but transgenderism and beyond are moving up the ranks: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sam-dorman/camille-paglia-transgender-mania-symptom-cultural-collapse.

to THE AGE
     John Roskam is right to argue ('An Indigenous treaty would divide, not unite, us', 31/5) that all Australians, no matter what their ethnicity or ancestral background, must be seen as equal under the Constitution and thus under the Crown and at law. This approach to recent demands for constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is our best guarantee of maintaining national security and civic peace on this continent.

     The great majority of Australians respect our heritage of Aboriginal culture and currently show this in many ways. We appreciate and value the unique position within our Commonwealth of those having Aboriginal ancestry. What would Australia be without the beauty and profundity of Aboriginal culture? And we recognise the pain of past dispossession. But two wrongs do not make a right.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     President Donald Trump’s sole attempt to keep an election promise, has come unstuck by the court system, populated by globalists from the dream run they have had stacking the system.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction against Trump’s executive order curtailing travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, claiming that: even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is apparently based on  comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election. According to Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s opinion for the court calls the travel ban “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.” Well, given the way the judiciary think, the power to control borders is virtually non-existent. The claim that any decision about immigration control is rally about disfavouring Islam, could only be made in the context of a society suffering from advanced decay: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/25/travel-ban-blocked-again-possible-supreme-court-showdown/. Thinking that the US Supreme Court would be any different, is an illusion since clearly the legal system, and everything else has been corrupted beyond any duct tape repair.

     Thus, former US president Hussein Obama, freely proclaims the virtues of Merkel’s open borders destruction of Germany, while slamming Trump saying that “We can’t hide behind a wall”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/barack-obama-europe-taunts-donald-trump-isolationi/. No mention though of Israel’s highly successful wall.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Australians as a whole have a duty of care to all those citizens who suffer serious social and health disadvantage, so Ron Spielman is right to champion the cause of Aboriginals in such need (1/6), but his call for vaguely worded 'meaningful' and 'appropriate' recognition is an erroneous response.

     He refers to 'those whose large piece of earth was occupied by strangers against their will.' All those people are dead. The task now is to work towards justice and well-being for all Australians living now and those who will follow. If it be asked was not dispossession unfair to 'the Aboriginal people', answers may differ, but the law must deal with living individuals and not political abstractions in this case.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The papers have reported that South Africa is heading to a bloody race war, with growing numbers of farm invasions, and the threat of further illegal confiscations of white farms: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4457280/Is-South-Africa-heading-civil-war.html. Liberal globalists objected to this article, as the recognition of the clear failure of the multiracial dream is unpalatable to them.

     Meanwhile the victims of this supposed war begin to pile up, not just in farm invasions and deaths and tortures: https://mg.co.za/tag/farm-invasions; http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476,  but in the day-to-day ghoulish rapes/murders.
    The latest horror: Hannah Cornelius, a 21-year-old student, who was raped, stabbed and strangled to death in Stellenbosch South Africa, by four blacks who had carjacked her. Two suspects have, at the time of writing, been caught. No doubt, this will not be seen as a hate crime:
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/dp/0984907017.