When I first read the headline that London was off-limits, I thought that this related to the wave of crime and knife attacks, and the white flight that has made once merry, London, majority non-white. But, it is way more complex than just a racial apocalypse angle, and involves our “friends” the elites:
  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-inequality-social-mobility-sutton-trust-meritocracy-unpaid-internships-privilege-a9295986.html

“London has cemented itself as the UK’s “elite epicentre” since the 1980s and has become increasingly off-limits to those from less privileged backgrounds, an extensive study suggests. The “Dick Whittington vision” of moving to the capital to make one’s fortune is largely a myth, the Sutton Trust’s report found. The skyrocketing cost of living in London means those from privileged backgrounds are the most able to migrate there and take advantage of the most sought-after career opportunities, researchers concluded, finding three quarters of those who move to London for elite jobs are already advantaged. Furthermore, the analysis of census-based data suggested the vast majority of the most socially-mobile people born between 1965 and 1981 had never made a long-distance move, choosing instead to remain close to home and benefit from the growing spread of professional jobs across the country. However, social mobility appears to be decreasing, with the number of men rising to professional and managerial classes from the lowest occupational classes declining from 20 per cent in those born between 1955 and 1961, to 12 per cent in those born two decades later. To combat this rising inequality, the report recommends abolishing unpaid internships, increasing the number of degree-level apprenticeships on offer as an alternative to university, and incentivising state schools to concentrate more on life skills like public speaking, self-control and motivation techniques within their curriculums. “London is essentially off-limits to ambitious people from poorer backgrounds who grow up outside the capital,” said Sutton Trust founder, Sir Peter Lampl. “That means that boosting London is not going to have much impact on making things fairer for anyone other than those already living there. “In spite of the dominance of London, over two thirds of the socially mobile have never made a long-term move. It’s crucial that the new Conservative government implements its policy of creating more opportunities across the country so that talented people can benefit from them wherever they live.”

     Trump was in Davos, giving a soft nationalist speech, which is better than nothing. But Georgie boy was there too, to counter him at every corner, as he does in his 24/7 job:
  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/george-soros-in-davos-2020-election-will-determine-fate-of-the-world/

“Left-wing billionaire George Soros on Thursday reportedly warned that the 2020 election will determine the “fate of the world” and lashed out at President Donald Trump during a private dinner event at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Soros, the 89-year-old founder of the progressive advocacy organization Open Society Foundations, accused the president of being a “con man” and a “narcissist” who wants the world to “revolve around him,” according to CNBC. “When his fantasy of becoming president became a reality,” his ego swelled, Soros said, adding: “This has turned his narcissism into a malignant disease.” Soros, who has yet to endorse a 2020 Democrat candidate, then said that this year’s election will decide the “fate of the world,” CNBC reports. In October, the billionaire argued White House contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the “most qualified to be president,” but stopped short of formally throwing his support behind her. This, of course, is not the first time the hedge fund manager has taken aim at President Trump at the World Economic Forum. Last year, Soros criticized the president’s negotiating style against China, which culminated in the signing of a phase one trade agreement last Wednesday. “Regrettably, President Trump seems to be following a different course: Make concessions to China and declare victory while renewing his attacks on U.S. allies,” Soros said at the time.

     I did not think the system would bite back so hard, or quickly after being smacked down in the recent US gun march; now criticising the government is illegal, in the land of the free, the USA:
  https://bigleaguepolitics.com/virginia-democrats-push-legislation-to-make-criticism-of-government-officials-a-criminal-offense/

“In the wake of the Virginia gun rights rally on Monday, Democrats in the Capitol are not slowing down their push for tyranny. They are moving a bill through the legislature that would effectively criminalize dissent against Governor Blackface Northam and other state government officials. House Bill 1627 was introduced by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne last week. The legislation “provides that certain crimes relating to threats and harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.” Language in the bill explicitly criminalizes free speech, in what would constitute a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor,” the legislation reads. The legislation makes it clear that the above provision applies directly to “the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia,” which means this legislation effectively criminalizes dissent against public officials. Tina Freitas, wife of Republican Delegate Nick Freitas, called attention to this intolerable act in a Facebook post on Tuesday night.

     Well, that explains everything, and makes it all understandable :
  https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/cops-muslim-sex-grooming-gangs-didnt-understand-that-it-was-wrong?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_01_23_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-01-25

“The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian. Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.” Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find. A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester. Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.

     You have to hand it to the ever-lovable Greeks, with their fantastic food and dancing and rational philosophy, they know how to migrate, but they also know how to protest about immigration to their beautiful islands. And good for them, if only the rest of the West was as strong:
  https://www.dw.com/en/greek-islanders-strike-against-migrant-camps/a-52107659

“The islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios are the frontline of Europe's migrant crisis. Islanders have run out of patience, demanding their government empty the overflowing reception camps and return their islands to them. Residents of the Greek islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios went on strike on Wednesday, angry at the overflowing migrant camps. Under the slogan "we want our islands back, we want our lives back," the islanders shut stores and closed public services, as people demonstrated on the streets, waving Greek flags. DW correspondent Max Zander tweeted that there was a "massive" turnout at the anti-migration policy protest in Mytilini, Lesbos. Trade unionists and regional lawmakers demanded that the Greek government immediately transport the thousands of migrants stranded at camps to the mainland after registration. Some of the camps are at 10 times the intended capacity. Protest organizers said they are also seeking more information on the government's announcements that it will build more camps on the islands. 'Our island can no longer be the site of lost souls' "We can't continue to put up with this situation in our small town," said Giorgos Stantzos, mayor of Vathy, the main town on the island of Samos. "Our island can no longer be the site of lost souls and suffering people," the regional governor of the northern Aegean Sea region, Kostas Moutzouris told Greek broadcaster ERT Open. Governors and mayors from the region plan to travel to Athens on Thursday to present their demand to the government. The Greek government, under conservative Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, announced in October 2019 that it wants to send 10,000 migrants back to Turkey by the end of 2020 as part of a more hardline approach to migration.”

     I have always been amused by this paradox; that the discipline of philosophy, and I did two years philosophy, failing, at a useless university in America, long ago, prides itself on defending all manners of things, like minds don’t exist, the world is only the elementary units of physics, morality is an illusion, and so on. But, nothing defending the concept of race … oh, that is too problematic for a group of people where it was once said that there is no absurdity that some philosopher has not defended. Oh, there is plenty criticising race, but when an article does appear that is not 1,000 percent politically correct, well, watch out:
  https://www.thecollegefix.com/philosophy-journal-refuses-to-retract-paper-defending-research-on-race-and-intelligence/

“Nearly two years ago, a feminist philosophy journal faced demands to retract a paper that compared “transracialism” to transgenderism. Some of its editors quickly apologized, but were then overruled by the journal’s top editors. Another philosophy journal is facing similar retraction demands for publishing a paper on “group differences in intelligence,” but its editors preemptively said that’s not going to happen. The petition against Philosophical Psychology for publishing “race science” is led by Mark Alfano, whose CV says he currently teaches at the Netherlands’ Delft University of Technology and Australia’s Macquarie University. It calls on editors Cees van Leeuwen and Mitchell Herschbach to retract the paper, apologize, resign or “some combination” of those. As of Thursday night, the petition had under 70 signatures including Alfano’s. While that’s far below the 800 signatures quickly amassed against Rebecca Tuvel’s comparison of Rachel Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner in Hypatia, the controversy is generating the same battle lines, with scholars debating the merits of the paper and the role of free inquiry in science. Van Leeuwen and Herschbach published an editors’ note the day after the Dec. 23 paper by Nathan Cofnas, a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Oxford, defending free inquiry regardless of the controversy generated by his argument. They followed up with a Facebook statement Tuesday disputing Alfano’s criticisms of the editorial process in his petition and associated blog post, saying he offers “a rather misleading summary of the paper.”

     Oh, the Western feminists are quiet about this one, which having a race/ethnic/religious dimension, goes into the “too-hard” basket. Really, the sharp teeth and claws of feminism are only used on white men. Everyone else, whatever they do, gets a pass by. What a “philosophy”!
  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-marry-rapist-bill-child-marriage-a9296681.html

“A law which would allow men accused of having sex with girls who are under 18 to avoid punishment if they marry their victims is set to be introduced to parliament in Turkey. The controversial so-called “marry-your-rapist” bill, which lawmakers are planning to introduce to Turkish parliament at the end of January, has sparked fury among women’s rights campaigners in the country. Critics argue the legislation, which the opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) is urging the government to axe, not only legitimises child marriage and statutory rape but also paves the way for child abuse and sexual exploitation. A similar bill was defeated in Turkey in 2016 after national and global outrage. The legislation would have only pardoned men if they had sex without “force or threat”. United Nations agencies warned the bill would generate a landscape of impunity for child abuse and leave victims vulnerable to experiencing additional mistreatment and distress from their assailants. “Marry-your-rapist” bills have been seen across the world and are pushed in the name of protecting and safeguarding family “honour”. Suad Abu-Dayyeh, a campaigner who specialises in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for Equality Now, a non government organisation which aims to promote the rights of women and girls, said it was "shocking" politicians are trying to pass a bill that "provides impunity for perpetrators of child sexual exploitation". She told The Independent: "I applaud the brave work of women’s rights campaigners in Turkey who are taking a stand against this discriminatory bill and pushing back again regressive forces that are seeking to remove current legal protections for girls. Similar 'marry-your-rapist' legal provisions have been on the statute books of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. "Thanks to years of campaigning by women’s rights activists and lawmakers, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Palestine have all removed these loopholes in recent years. Rather than attempting to introduce legislation that harms women's rights and protections, Turkish lawmakers should take heed of these advances in repealing gender discriminatory laws.” While the legal age of consent is 18 in Turkey, a 2018 government report on child marriage estimates a total of 482,908 girls were married in the last decade.”

     The Nordic nature of The Lord of the Rings films gave the elites heartburn, for it was a source of moral panic to appeal to such suppressed symbols, of a fair people under attack by monsters. So, The Hobbit dealt with this, making some of the evil ones white, and the dwarfs being ugly creatures, not like the pocket Viking Gimli. Hence those movies were not as popular. Now comes the woke TV series, to bury Tolkien forever:
  https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/01/whos-ready-for-black-elves-in-middle-earth/#more-115691

“LOTR’s unbearable whiteness—and that of the fantasy genre as a whole—still agitates critics. “There are no black people on ‘Game of Thrones.’ You don’t see one black person in Lord of the Rings,’” Star Wars actor John Boyega said in a 2017 interview . “I ain’t paying money to always see one type of person on-screen. Because you see different people from different backgrounds, different cultures, every day. Even if you’re a racist, you have to live with that. We can ruffle up some feathers.” This criticism has increased since the release of the last Hobbit in 2014. Game of Thrones was a far more pozzed creation than the LOTR films, yet critics still could not cope with the nearly all-white cast. The show had a legion of STRONG WOMEN characters and upheld AWFL (affluent white female liberal values) values. In contrast, LOTR expressed a right-wing worldview based on a pagan-Christian synthesis. Regardless of the differences, critics frowned upon GoT for the same reasons they disliked LOTR. The criticism got to GoT’s producers. The canceled prequel series  was set to have a very diverse cast led by female showrunners.

     There is a great article:

“How and why prescribed burning mitigates bushfire losses,”

     Is there still a little bit of life left in the Church of England? Well, maybe:
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

“The Church of England has stated that sex belongs only within heterosexual marriage, and that sex in gay or straight civil partnerships “falls short of God’s purpose for human beings”. Bishops have issued pastoral guidance in response to the recent introduction to mixed-sex civil partnerships, which says: “For Christians, marriage – that is, the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.” The church “seeks to uphold that standard” in its approach to civil partnerships, and “to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships” within such partnerships. It adds: “Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purpose for human beings.” The affirmation of traditional teaching at a time when the church is undergoing a major review of sexuality and marriage will delight conservatives. The Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005, allowing same-sex couples to acquire a legal status and rights in relation to property, inheritance and tax entitlement. In 2013, same-sex marriage was legalised. The C of E does not permit same-sex marriage. It allows clergy to be in same-sex civil partnerships as long as they are sexually abstinent. After the supreme court ruled in 2018 that mixed-sex couples should also have the right to a civil partnership, the law was amended. The first mixed-sex civil partnerships were registered last month. The Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the C of E’s director of mission and public affairs, said: “Civil partnership is not the same as marriage, which is founded on the taking of solemn public vows and is recognised in the church’s teaching as the only proper context for sexual relationships. “So, as with same-sex civil partnerships, there is no formal service or blessing but clergy will, as always, be encouraged to respond pastorally to couples wishing to formalise their relationship in this way.”

     There is apparently a voluntary human extinction movement, a fringe Greenie/Left one. The aim is not just to eliminate whites, as many Greenies and Commos want, but all humans, so full marks for anti-discrimination, if nothing else! Ok, dream on. Still, the movement is part of natural selection, since the very people who will not have children will spare the world from their socialist genes, improving the gene pool. So, with things like this, I say, stop arguing, just bring it on! Here is Les knight on the movement for the extinction of the human rsace:
  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/10/i-campaign-for-the-extinction-of-the-human-race-les-knight

“In 1996, when we got a website, things took off. People from all over the world emailed me, saying they had thought they were alone. I got hate mail, too. “You first,” is a common taunt. OK, I got snipped; you next. My favourite encounters are with people who thoroughly question the concept: I’ll take thoughtful disagreement over mindless agreement any day. I don’t know how many share my beliefs, but I speak to hundreds of advocates each year. We have active volunteers across the world, from India to Mexico. In my own relationships, I’ve always explained that pregnancy is impossible. Marriage never made sense to me anyway: I would have missed getting to know many wonderful women had I stuck with one. Today, Extinction Rebellion and the climate strike movement haven’t quite embraced the population’s contribution to the crisis. Other high-profile population awareness organisations are working hard to be acceptable, so suggest zero or one offspring, and still say stop at two. Two is too many: computer models suggest even one-child families would result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Although the basic concept of the movement is the same, my motivations have evolved. I was a deep ecologist at first, caring more about our impact on the ecosphere than human needs. I’ve become more concerned about any new humans being brought into existence. Procreation today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship. It’s true that society would be greatly diminished without children, but it isn’t right to create them just because we like having them around. People worry that we won’t have enough workers to support pensioners, but economic systems are artificial and can be adjusted. We don’t need to breed more wage slaves to prop up an obsolete system. If we go extinct, other species will have a chance to recover. I’ll never see the day when there are no humans on the planet, but I can imagine what a magnificent world it would be – provided we go soon enough.

     We would like to think that the big evil media monsters can be defeated. The big question is: how? Some worthy ideas have been given by Ron Unz, who uses Saul Alinsky ideas from the Left, against the Left, in a kind of epistemological judo:
  https://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/alternative-media-can-defeat-mainstream-media-heres-game-plan/ri23703

“Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere
The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere else as well. The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.

     Keeping readers up-to -date on LGBT + news that they may not be getting on Sunday at their quiet suburban church, but this is all coming, with Sweden leading the charge:
  https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/02/church-of-sweden-lgbt-inclusive-altarpiece-homophobes-triggered-st-pauls-malmo-elisabeth-ohlson-wallin/

“The Church of Sweden has unveiled the country’s first-ever LGBT+ altarpiece, the artwork behind an altar, and homophobes are very upset about it. The painting, titled ‘Paradise’, shows same-sex couples wearing fig leaves in the Garden of Eden and was created by the lesbian artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin. St Paul’s church in Malmö unveiled the altarpiece on the first day of advent (December 1) to create “greater inclusion and identification in the Church”. St Paul’s said in a statement: “It is with pride and joy that we receive Paradise in St Paul’s Church. We need images that open up for greater inclusion and identification in the church. “We are grateful to Elisabeth’s artistry, which enables us to build a credible church that shows that we all, regardless of who we love and identify as, are accommodated in Paradise.” One of the pastors at the church wrote on Twitter: “On Sunday, history is written. Sweden’s only LGBT altarpiece (Elisabeth Ohlsson Wallin) is received by St Paul’s church in Malmö… We are so happy and proud!” However, many on social media were upset about the celebratory and inclusive piece of art. One person wrote: “Not impressed. This is not about Christian values, but only political activism. Shameful!” Another added: “This is an anti-Christian heresy that abhors the altar and the Eucharist. Those responsible should be excommunicated.”

     Here is something I did not know about Adam Smith, the founder of free market economics, beloved by conservatives: he was financed by a globalist of the time:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/geopolitics-epistemological-warfare-babylon-neocon

“Smith at Her Majesty’s Service
Do Smith’s modern followers sincerely believe in the “self-regulating forces of the free market”? Sure they do. Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system? Whether he did or not, according to recent research conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose his seminal book Wealth of Nations (published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his 1729 Necessity of Paper Currency and Colonial Script. Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new “Law” of “absolute advantage” demanded that everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don’t ask how that happened because it wasn’t through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she could do that… which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. “Free Trade” demanded it so.”

     I have been waiting for the globalists, through the accursed UN, to start going on about climate refugees, and how the West is responsible for placing entire populations, along with everything else the West is subjected to. They will not stop as long as the West still stands; this is the endgame.
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/20/climate-refugees-cant-be-returned-home-says-landmark-un-human-rights-ruling

“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. The judgment – which is the first of its kind – represents a legal “tipping point” and a moment that “opens the doorway” to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say. Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade. The judgment relates to the case of Ioane Teitiota, a man from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, which is considered one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013, claiming his and his family’s lives were at risk. The committee heard evidence of overcrowding on the island of South Tarawa, where Teitiota lived, saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable, which had led to violence and social tensions.”

     Who says that immigration was not about changing the racial profile and demographics? Just consider the case of Germany, where now, almost half of the children are offspring of migrants. Take away jobs, with the rise of IT, and let’s see if the Coudenhove-Kalergi replacement plan produces the rainbow utopia that the elites think has been produced in South Africa.
  https://russia-insider.com/en/achtung-nearly-50-germanys-newborns-are-not-german-excellent-educational-video/ri28161
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwyevHwUlKQ&feature=emb_title

     Time for the West to start opening its eyes as it crosses the busy freeway.

     Considerable publicity is being given to an article by Byron Lamont and Tianhua He titled “Why prescribed burns don’t stop wildfires” (published in New Matilda, and also WAToday 22 January 2020).
  https://newmatilda.com/2020/01/17/hazard-reduction-burns-dont-stop-wildfires-says-one-of-the-nations-most-eminent-ecologists/

Lamont and He are academics from Curtin University in WA, the former a botanist and the latter a molecular biologist. They argue against the use of fuel reduction burning in bushfire management because it does not "stop bushfires". The article should be filed among works of fiction.

     Prince Charles has in effect, posed the question, ‘Do we continue business as usual while our livelihood deteriorates?’ It behoves all to think seriously about the question. In parable terms it means; was the Sabbath made for Man or Man made for the Sabbath? One link not addressed is that of debt and the massive impact it has on all nations.  For instance Australia is on a treadmill to develop, produce, populate through immigration and trade with other countries, in large parts to keep the economy functioning and to service the debt. It is obvious that if the debt question of finance is not rectified, an artificial drive to use natural resources to keep the economy in overdrive to service the debt will continue. This would be unnecessary if the financial system functioned as intended; that is, a ticket system to distribute goods and services and facilitate the needs and running of the economy for the benefit of the citizens of the nation. In real terms Australia is a wealthy nation.  The natural wealth, knowledge and labour to feed, clothe and house everyone are in abundance.  It is essential that finance accurately reflect this reality and be balanced with the life-giving forces which sustain us. Technology is replacing much of the physical labour and the money ticket system could facilitate in such change to benefit all. Every nation could be responsible for issuing their own money debt-free for its housekeeping which would ease the pressure to compete for artificial markets.  There would be no need for IMF intervention if the citizens of every nation were responsible for their own political, economic and cultural decisions while respecting other nations and trading where genuine needs exist. Money is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  This is the key to the question posed and is subject to the answer.
  Jennifer Grundy
  January 2020

To The Age        Australians in general respect Aboriginal culture and see it as an important part of our national heritage, providing a distinctive element unique to our history. However, this does not mean that we should transform the nature of our wonderful Constitution to specially privilege one small minority of present-day Australians - those claiming Aboriginal ancestry ("Indigenous history vital to Australia Day", 25/1). The Constitution originated as an agreement between the then colonies to form a single nation. It is not appropriate to turn it into a political manifesto. Divisive proposals that only make sense if there is a long-term goal of political separatism should be shunned.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian         We have a rare slip from Geoffrey Blainey ("An epic endeavour, a vexed debate", 25-26/1): Aboriginal peoples were not "the first discoverers of Australia" but only of this continent - and there may have been others even before them. There is also a furphy from Angela Shanahan ("No welcome mat laid out for early European arrivals", 25-26/1): immigrants from non-British nations have certainly contributed to our national character, but not (despite her claim) as much as "the English-speaking majority." Australia remains primarily a British cultural creation, just over a hundred years old (if we date its origin as Federation) or twice that (if we go back to 1788). We enjoy a free way of life here (though not, alas, as totally free as it should be) thanks, essentially, to British endeavour. Any attempts to downplay the British contribution should be strongly opposed, since they also involve downplaying the importance of political freedom and open debate in public forums.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave