The movement to ban martial arts, and leave ordinary deplorables defenceless against home invaders, knife attackers, you name it, is on. The Fight Prefect channel has been removed, for who knows what reason … oh, it debunked nonsense.
  https://www.reddit.com/r/martialarts/comments/e5f5nf/what_happened_to_fight_perfect_tv/
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Y4B6AQm0c

     The US state of Virginia is moving ahead of the wave with an implicit banning of martial arts, showing that the elites never stop at just guns, they want the deplorables crushed like insects under the jackboot:
  https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-11-27-tyranny-alert-virginia-to-outlaw-krav-maga-brazilian-jiu-jitsi-kickboxing-firearms-instruction-sb64.html

     Everybody know that I love China, in a funny like of way, but I am not a big fan of concentration camps at all, even of less concentrated camps. I don’t even like concentrated soup, or even concentrating too hard myself:
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-17/china-muslim-minority-camps-work-revealed-leaked-documents/11712152
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-25/china-cables-beijings-xinjiang-secrets-revealed/11719016

“A leaked 400-page document released by the New York Times reveal new details about how the Chinese have organised the mass detention of more than 1 million people from its Muslim minorities, including the Uyghurs and Kazakhs.

     I think that it is time that I give up, and since the communist Chinese government does not want to pay me I guess I will become a high priest of the new climate change religion. What’s that? All the high priest positions have been long filled, even after the departure of Al Gore’s gory mass. Can I be a low priest then? How low do we go? Well, Thanksgiving has been cancelled by the Eco-maniacs, so now get ready for the attack on Christmas:
  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/thanksgiving-dinner-ecological-impact_l_5db07ef7e4b0d5b78944bc6e?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHNyGX80JWzNwEGPoRhrRuQp0s1C6nxvJAQvZj7zeHDDH0IEpRY6XusfcpzeWYKo4jziOQ8Ec5wE8k9mCz-nBRwfnJUatfcyo24hFhRr1OWdtw3239UNPG3iD_Iahw9OhlrgS98cDev9OCmcfsOLCfw3k_Q_FR-PxR0i2Mp_8174

     Do long URLs increase carbon emissions, too? And look, I finally discovered how to cross out things: climate change. How good is that? If only it was magic.

     The new proposal by republicans to void the referendum process and have the state and federal parliaments vote on the succession when the Queen passes (Annika Smedhurst Telegraph 8/12/19) is fraught with legal complexities and will not work. The proposal, promoted by Labor MP Julian Hill, is typical of the sort of system that will exist under a republic where the voice of the people will be muted with politicians reigning supreme.

Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League

To The Australian          Aboriginal Mick Gooda claims that "you can't have a treaty unless it's based on the truth" ("Fears for treaty if LNP takes control: Gooda", 9/12). Well, the truth is that all current attempts to establish treaties with Aboriginals are ethically built on sand and are clearly against the interests of most Australians. Another truth is that the so-called "eminent panel" of which he is a member is in no way adequately representative of Australians as a whole. Mr Gooda also wants a "truth-telling" operation whose outcomes are to become "an essential part of the school curriculum". Whose truth, I wonder. It sounds more like a propaganda drive such as the Soviet communists used and George Orwell satirised so memorably. In Victoria only 2,000 Aboriginal Victorians out of 30,000 who were eligible participated in the state's improperly constituted elections for the "First People's Assembly". Meanwhile Mr Gooda wants "multiple treaties" as well. The "constitutional recognition" situation could be laughed off as Gilbertian if it were not also a sinister assault on our hitherto successful political order.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian          Janet Albrechtsen sounds very authoritarian in her criticism of Jeremy Corbyn's attitude to Jewish interests ("UK rejects descent into chaos", 14-15/12). Opposition to an alleged Jewish "banker cartel" and disagreement with the currently accepted understanding of the Holocaust do not necessarily involve hostility to Jews generally. These attitudes may be justified as rejection of high-level self-interested manipulations by extraordinarily powerful financiers and reassessment of the nature and extent of Nazi Germany's mistreatment of Jewish persons between 1933 and 1945. Albrechtsen's reference to a definition of anti-Semitism that is "globally respected" can also be challenged. There is very considerable intellectually based opposition, worldwide, to the current trend of treating the Holocaust as a kind of ersatz religion whose dogmas may not be challenged. Moreover, the present practice in the European Union of jailing Holocaust revisionists is an affront to the principle of free speech, yet Albrechtsen ignores this wickedness completely.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic 

To The Age         What Peter Hartcher discusses as the contemporary success of "right-wing populism" ("The pragmatic populists", 17/12) can perhaps be better seen, on a much greater time scale, as the beginning of a return to public order. The thousand year rule of Catholic Christianity was gradually overthrown by a reform movement that began with Protestantism and ended with a Marxist collectivism that rejected the sacred completely. Unfortunately, while the reform movement freed us from an inquisitorial "orthodoxy" that contained major misunderstanding of the Jesus story, it also unleashed a variety of modes of selfishness that have greatly damaged human society. It has also been utilised by financially powerful globalist elites intent on extending their influence. In the face of this disaster ordinary people are beginning to recognise that daily life will be safer and more pleasant if their nations readopt a sensible conservatism, which will include a wisely articulated moral code based on awareness of the sacred underpinning of all human history.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Paige Taylor's full-page and thoroughly one-sided discussion of plans for an Aboriginal voice to be enshrined in the constitution ("The voice of reason", 20/12) could more aptly be titled "The voice of treason". This campaign makes no sense unless it is understood as a semi-clandestine attempt to prepare the way for the division of Australia into two nations. Marcia Langton, a very privileged person who has been the recipient of government largesse, wrongly claims that Australians having Aboriginal ancestry have been "consistently excluded" from their citizenship entitlements. If we are thinking reasonable entitlements, this view has been amply exposed as false by Keith Windschuttle and other commentators. The government's senior advisory group is unrepresentative of the views of Australians as a whole. The sooner it is disbanded the better. The government has hitherto, in this context, shirked its duty to govern for all living Australians, not just a few whose right to claim special treatment has been hotly contested and rightly so.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Unlike the Australian Republic Movement, I'm glad that our armed services personnel and politicians are required to swear loyalty to the Queen rather than to the Australian people or Australia ("Diggers 'serve us, not the Queen'", 23/12). Her Majesty is a person, not an amorphous abstraction or a geographical location. What's more, she has been trained from childhood to assume royal responsibility and has acquitted herself as monarch magnificently. Even more importantly, she has accepted her role as a trust given by God to whom she dedicated her life in humility and wisdom. So our loyalty to her is also a commitment to align our lives with the guidance of divinity, not with current political correctness or ideological fashion. Moreover, she is not a "foreign monarch" but Queen of Australia in her own right - one of us by legislation and in reality.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Noel Pearson has compared the "65,000 years of presence" of Aboriginal peoples on this continent with the "250 years of British dominion" ("Ministers present but voice muffled", 28-29/12), evidently believing that this contrast of numbers justifies the campaign for Aboriginal constitutional recognition. He should ask himself which of those passages of time has contributed more to the flourishing Australian nation in which we live today. The answer is that quality of culture easily trumps longevity of tenure. In any case, we cannot return to yesterday and should not try to. The present Australian nation has now lasted long enough to justify its constitutional hold on this land. Pearson purports to "rehearse the main grounds for objection to positive recognition", but ignores many of the most important, such as the need for internal stability, national security and equity for all Australians. Perhaps Paige Taylor could now give us an article of similar length reporting in depth on the whole range of arguments against constitutional recognition and the key persons advocating them.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Age        David Wilson suggests (30/12) that "the monarchy is no longer relevant to contemporary Australia", but in fact its importance for our future well-being grows stronger by the day. We live in challenging and even threatening times and our response to these will be wiser and firmer if it is based on adherence to royalty and its divine basis. Republics are sometimes needed for a while if monarchies go bad, but such is not the case for us. The House of Windsor, whatever the personal failings of some of its members, possesses a noble record of public service and dignified contribution to government and public affairs. Let 2020 be a year when Australia returns to its traditional roots, those on which our great nation was built.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

To The Age         Perhaps Waleed Aly is too pessimistic in his doom-saying prognosis of a coming "public hell" due to "system breakdown" ("A new decade of public hell", 4/1), but he may be right to focus on a growing "disillusionment with democracy itself." Australian society, like that of other nations based in Western European culture, appears more and more clearly to be oligarchic in structure despite its self-promotion as "liberal democracy"; and to many people that oligarchy appears to be too well entrenched to be able to be successfully challenged. That, apart from the seductions of technological inventiveness, may be why people are turning inward and withdrawing from participation in the forums of "public space." Aly, in exhibiting a distaste for renewed movements of nationalism (why?), asserts that "globalisation isn't about to be undone." It depends what you mean by globalisation. A renewed sacred movement of reform within Christianity might work wonders; but one means reform and not a superficial revival based on flawed church authority or a simplistic insistence that "the Bible is the Word of God."
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Damien Freeman asserts that "it is unfair to conclude that indigenous people make demands that are endless and can never be satisfied" ("Wyatt on right track for recognition of indigenous people in constitution", 4-5/1). However, during past decades ample evidence has accrued from the published statements of indigenous leaders and their non-indigenous supporters to refute Freeman's wishy-washy idealism. Kow-towing to the Uluru Statement is seen by many key players as just the first step towards enabling indigenous people to reclaim most if not all of this continent for themselves. Freeman's phrase "a constitutional anchor" sounds reassuring, but, in fact, if enacted, it would become a constitutional fetter on Australians seeking to maintain the traditional political order of our nation. Furthermore, constitutional amendment is not needed at all "to ensure indigenous voices are heard." They are being loudly heard everywhere, with the assistance of financially powerful supporters. Finally, neither former chief justice Murray Gleeson nor anyone else has been able to show that constitutional amendment would not fatally strike at the principle of equity (fair treatment) for all Australians.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

     It was so predictable that probably no bookie would have take money for it, but the Democrats are charging ahead with impeachment against Trump, even compounding impeachment articles in the hope of getting something to stick. The Republicans responded by denying any wrong doing from Trump.

  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-intel-panel-releases-trump-impeachment-report 

To The Age        Jason Steger is right ("The arts are vital to everyone", 7/12) to remind us that our artists are "just as important in telling the world about the nature of Australia" as our sports stars. Thus it is reasonable for him to question what seems a diminution of government support for them in the PM's "rejigging of the federal public service." On a wider scale Steger expresses puzzlement at our nation's "fraught relationship with the arts." That their value "is not fully tangible" may indeed be part of it. The arts direct our awareness beyond the mundane and the merely logical to regions not currently in fashion with outdoor hedonists or money-makers. Yet a significant number of culturally alert Australians still do value them for the "intrinsic quality they bring to society." What is omitted in Steger's analysis is the close link (for good as well as bad) between the arts and left-wing politics. If artists and patrons could be kinder to right-wing views, a centre-right government might return the favour.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave   

     Have a guess who is propping up China’s surveillance state? It is those lovers of freedom, globalist Big Techy:
  https://www.technocracy.news/western-tech-giants-propping-up-chinas-surveillance-state/

“A bombshell follow-up report to a major document leak which confirmed and detailed China’s vast Uyghur Muslim Xinjiang prison network and system for monitoring communications and whereabouts has named names. Names that is, of US tech giants that are actually aiding and abetting China’s multibillion-dollar surveillance industry being used to impose a total electronic police state on the communist country. And it’s not just Google and IBM, but a growing list of recognizable names. “U.S. companies, including Seagate Technology PLC, Western Digital Corp. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., have nurtured, courted and profited from China’s surveillance industry,” the scathing report begins. “Several have been involved since the industry’s infancy.” These American companies gained greater scrutiny after the US Treasury recently targeted up to eight Chinese surveillance companies, blocking their ability to export US technology through which they could help the Chinese state in committing human rights and individual privacy violations. This included a federal ban on US agencies purchasing video surveillance equipment manufactured by Dahua, Hikvision, and Hytera Communications.

     This week Clintel attended the Heartland COP 25 conference at the Marriott Hotel in Madrid. The hotel was full of champagne-drinking COP delegates who were clearly enjoying themselves (‘climate business model in action’). To be sure they were not disturbed by demonstrators, Clintel had a recording room somewhere at the back and we heard about its coordinates on the same morning. Guus Berkhout was the first speaker at the event that was live-streamed from the Marriot Hotel. It was not an official COP25 event but a Heartland side-event with the aim to sound a different message to the world. Heartland had arranged several excellent speakers, such as Will Happer (who for the past year worked as an adviser in the White House), Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts, Douglas Pollock (our Chilean Clintel ambassador), Tom Harris, Stanley Goldenberg and a fascinating young German girl, Naomi Seibt, who gave an impressive speech about contentious issues such as climate change and the immigration crisis. The whole event was available online at  https://climaterealityforum.com/  and a record 76,000 watched.

A few conclusions:

1) The world should move from mitigation panic to intelligent adaptation (Guus Berkhout)

2) The economy of Chile is ruined by climate policy (Douglas Pollock)

3) The energy prices in Germany are vastly increasing (Wolfgang Müller)

4) New scientific insight shows that future climate sensitivity for CO2 is not more than 1.5 degrees, probably significantly smaller than 1.5 due to saturation effects (William Happer)

5) Climate models are immature and unfit for making policy (Christopher Monckton)

5) There is no evidence that global warming causes more natural disasters (Stanley Goldenberg)

6) Homogenisation of measurements lower the temperatures in the past (Anthony Watts)

7) The killing of birds and bats by wind turbines is much higher than reported (Tom Harris)

8) School children are massively brainwashed (Naomi Seibt)

     Greg Johnson at Counter-Curents.com, explains the doctrine of accelerationism as follows: “Accelerationism is the idea that the best way to achieve White Nationalist goals is to accelerate the decline of the present system. This will supposedly have two effects. First, acceleration will weaken the system’s ability to maintain power, including to oppress dissenters. Second, acceleration will anger and awaken the white masses, making them more receptive to our message.”
  https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/01/against-accelerationism/

     Once we accept that the system is occupied, not by our kind, that the rulers are unelected Deep Staters and other elites, and that we deplorables are ear-marked for the Great Replacement, the conservativism of the past, and past strategies and tactics, need drastic modification. Accelerationism, or as others have called it, destructionism, looks forward to the collapse of the system as needed for any chance of rebuilding, since reform of what exists now is simply impossible. Look at Trump as the last chance of any sort of mainstream poliytical answer to the problems that confront us.

     For your interest, the IMF chief is worried about a Great Depression 2.0, which I think would be a splendid idea, for what we have now is death by a thousand cuts, and anything accelerating the end of the system, not maintaining present power structures and increasing the oppression of us, but breaking down the alien system, which society has become, must be good. Note, this is all done by the internal contradictions of the system, and not by people striving to change it, because that awakening is not likely to happen any time soon due to the ostrich factor, and we are whistling in the dark if we expect it:
  https://www.amazon.com/Ostrich-Factor-Our-Population-Myopia/dp/0195122747
  https://www.technocracy.news/imf-chief-warns-on-great-depression-ii/
  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/17/head-of-imf-says-global-economy-risks-return-of-great-depression

“The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that the global economy risks a return of the Great Depression, driven by inequality and financial sector instability. Speaking at the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington, Kristalina Georgieva said new IMF research, which compares the current economy to the “roaring 1920s” that culminated in the great market crash of 1929, revealed that a similar trend was already under way. While the inequality gap between countries had closed in the last two decades, it had increased within countries, she said, singling out the UK for particular criticism. “In the UK, for example, the top 10% now control nearly as much wealth as the bottom 50%. This situation is mirrored across much of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), where income and wealth inequality have reached, or are near, record highs.” She added: “In some ways, this troubling trend is reminiscent of the early part of the 20th century – when the twin forces of technology and integration led to the first gilded age, the roaring 20s, and, ultimately, financial disaster.” She warned that fresh issues such as the climate emergency and increased trade protectionism meant the next 10 years were likely to be characterised by social unrest and financial market volatility. “If I had to identify a theme at the outset of the new decade, it would be increasing uncertainty,” she said. With disputes still raging between the US and Europe, she said “the global trading system is in need of a significant upgrade”. Georgieva said uncertainty affects not only businesses but individuals, especially given the rising inequality within many countries. She said that “excessive inequality hinders growth and ... can fuel populism and political upheaval”. Eric LeCompte, the head of debt charity Jubilee USA, said: “The IMF delivered a stark message about the potential for another massive financial disaster that we last experienced during the Great Depression. “With inequality on the rise and concerns of stability in the markets, we need to take this warning seriously.”

     Doctors betraying us? Those warriors of health who once took an oath to put the health and welfare of the patient, first. To do no harm. Sure.

“GPs are being paid to hand over data on their client’s weight and alcohol use and patients are not being asked for their permission. The Federal Government is requiring doctors to hand over patient data to Primary Health Networks on 10 performance measures in return for a $50,000 a year taxpayer-funded practice incentive payment. The data is meant to be de-identified but the Australian General Practice Alliance (AGPA) said “the likelihood that it could be re-identified in the event of a breach is very high.” To qualify for the money GP practices must provide information on their patients’ diabetes status, smoking, weight classification, alcohol use and influenza immunisation status. The government wants to use the information to track the treatment and improve the management of patients with key chronic health conditions. Nine in ten GP practices have already handed over de-identified patient data and earned $20.3 million while 395 practices were granted an exemption over concerns about data security. Under the guidelines for the program GPs are meant to ask their patients for permission to transfer the data but this has not been happening and patients are not being given the chance to opt out. Asked whether patients permission was being sought Royal Australian College of General Practitioners president (RACGP) Dr Harry Nespolon said the short answer was “no”. The collection of the data was covered by legislation that allows doctors to collect quality assurance type data “as long as it’s de-identified you can do it”, he said. The AGPA however says history shows it is very easy to re-identify health data.In 2016 when the Department of Health released 30 years’ worth of Medicare data it took Melbourne University computer experts just three days to decrypt it. And medical appointment booking firm HealthEngine was recently caught passing on users’ personal information to law firms seeking clients for personal injury claims, AGPA Director and former AMA president Dr Mukesh Haikerwal said.