With writers dealing with the theme of social chaos, to prepare readers for what might be coming, I found these words of wisdom, worth sharing here:
  https://tbsnews.net/thoughts/riots-happen-because-we-tend-romanticize-chaos-50536?

“Would most humans kill other humans if there were no punitive authority? That is a fascinating question, but inessential to the column for now, though it will be interesting to ask yourself what are the crimes you will commit if you are absolutely sure you will get away. What is relevant for the moment is the fact that just a handful of criminals, sadists and other deranged people are enough to create a riot. The rest can hug, it doesn't make a difference. The real reason why there are violent riots in India is in our romanticism of chaos. Chaos trains all Indians, from birth, to break rules on public property and to misunderstand that as democratic freedom. A nation born out of civil disobedience never had leaders of stature who deeply believed in civic order. It is the same chaos that lends a righteous edge to disruptive and illegal street agitations, and to a politician so disrespectful of the law that he had the courage to overtly threaten agitators that if they did not clear the way in three days, there would be violence. And it is the same chaos that creates an impotent police force.

     As my daughter just said to me when looking at my over-the-top headline, I don’t care Dad, at least I got out of doing my exams because of coronavirus. But, beyond that and economic collapse and all that we have on the horizon, this new threat, the Biden threat is set to devour everything, like a Hollywood monster movie from the 1950s:
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164871/Joe-Biden-takes-massive-25-point-lead-against-Donald-Trump-battleground-counties-Poll.html

“Joe Biden has taken a commanding 25-point lead in close counties where in 2016 Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were within 10 points of each other, a poll released Saturday revealed. The Fox News poll shows Biden ahead with 57 per cent support to Trump’s 32 per cent in close counties – defined by the poll as counties where Hillary Clinton and Trump were within 10 percentage points of each other in 2016. The former vice president also has a 49-40 per cent lead over Trump in the national head-to-head matchup, according to the first Fox poll taken after Biden became the assumed Democratic candidate. When looking at swing states overall – which were a considerable factor to Trump winning in 2016 – Biden’s lead shrinks to an eight-point margin. Although the primary election has been derailed due to the coronavirus outbreak this month, the last elections held March 17 cemented Biden’s position as the front-runner and presumed nominee after he won all three states participating – Arizona, Florida and Illinois. Bernie Sanders has still not dropped out of the race yet, even though it’s virtually impossible for him to best Biden at this point as he’s more than 300 delegates behind his establishment competitor. It is still unclear how the rest of the primary elections will pan out as the nation deals with adapting as several states have gone on lockdown and thousands have been diagnosed with coronavirus. The timing of this poll, taken March 21-24, is encouraging for Biden considering it was conducted during a time when Trump’s approval rating skyrocketed in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. This could be a signal that the rally behind Trump during this time might not translate to votes in November. Biden also has a massive boost in support, according to the poll, due to his pledge to choose a woman as his running mate – 63 per cent of voters approve of his promise.”

     It looks like, when fighting globalists, even when you win, they find a way of making you lose. Brexit, no doubt motivated by existential angst over the rapid racial changes produced by mass immigration, producing a white minority Britain, perhaps at the same pace as the United States, in the Great Replacement, may be now actually producing even more racial changes! Talk about when they lose, they win:
  https://qz.com/1802924/brexit-might-actually-make-the-uk-more-racially-diverse/

“The prime minister stressed that we must demonstrate that the UK is open and welcoming to talent from across the world; but the new system would end reliance on importing cheap, low-skilled labour—bringing down migration numbers overall,” a spokesperson for 10 Downing Street said. The number of Europeans arriving in the UK has fallen sharply since the June 2016 vote, in part over the uncertainty Brexit has created for EU citizens. Now that the UK has departed the bloc, it will be harder for Europeans to come to Britain once the transition period that runs until Dec. 31 ends, and they no longer have the automatic right to live and work in the country. In comparison, the number of immigrants from the rest of the world has continued to climb—which means the new immigration regulations may relatively increase racial diversity in Britain. That’s perhaps surprising, given that the issue of non-white or Muslim immigrants was a major talking point during the referendum. Boris Johnson used the prospect of large numbers of Turkish citizens arriving as a scare tactic, suggesting that Turkey’s accession to the EU—which at that point had already stalled—would mean the country’s roughly 80 million people would be able to settle in the UK under the bloc’s freedom of movement guarantees.”

To The Age         The Victorian Government is entering areas more appropriately left to the federal government ("State flags new native title deal for spiritual loss", 15/2). The business of treaty-making is properly left to the national government, representing all Australians, all of whose interests are at stake. Operating at state level, as the Andrews government is doing,  is potentially divisive for Australia in a most serious way. One suspects that state governments are acting this way simply because they know a Coalition federal government will not inappropriately squander millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on dubious claims about "spiritual loss" or in other unjustifiable ways.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Marcia Langton correctly states ("Ancient cultural 'belonging', more than race, is the issue", 15-16/2) that "a cultural and historical view of indigenous peoples, their antiquity and their belonging, is key to getting constitutional issues right." This is true, but leads to a conclusion different from those she draws. No living Australian has been here for 65,000 years or carries within himself or herself the dignity of the whole of Aboriginal history and culture. Constitutional matters can and should only deal with present-day and future Australians, not "the Aboriginal people or peoples" (abstractions). In this respect the past is a closed book. Moreover, the law should firmly recognise that every living Australian citizen should be regarded as an Australian first, before his or her ethnicity is considered. This means that, as regards proposed constitutional reforms of any kind, citizenship should be the primary aspect considered, not ethnicity, nor the longevity of the existence here of some of one's ancestors. The current three-part definition of an Aboriginal person may have "worked well as an administrative guideline" but should not be inappropriately applied in constitutional contexts to the detriment of "non-indigenous" citizens.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        In her promotion of a practical referendum for Aboriginal constitutional recognition ("Referendum must be practical, not symbolic", 7/2) Shirleen Morris misrepresents the nature of conservative opposition to any such recognition. It is not that there is a fear of "legal uncertainty", but that the whole idea is seen as dangerously divisive and powered by a long-term plan for total separatism involving two discrete national states on this continent. The project is clearly against the interests of the great majority of Australians. Morris also misidentifies its conservative opponents. Those she names are all supporters of constitutional change. The real conservatives are those who oppose any separatist policies, including the enacting of treaties. We need a more scrupulous as well as a more open debate to precede any referendum; and the government must ensure that the "No" case is fairly represented and funded.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        In her promotion of a practical referendum for Aboriginal constitutional recognition ("Referendum must be practical, not symbolic", 7/2) Shirleen Morris misrepresents the nature of conservative opposition to any such recognition. It is not that there is a fear of "legal uncertainty", but that the whole idea is seen as dangerously divisive and powered by a long-term plan for total separatism involving two discrete national states on this continent. The project is clearly against the interests of the great majority of Australians. Morris also misidentifies its conservative opponents. Those she names are all supporters of constitutional change. The real conservatives are those who oppose any separatist policies, including the enacting of treaties. We need a more scrupulous as well as a more open debate to precede any referendum; and the government must ensure that the "No" case is fairly represented and funded.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

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 Age         It seems, judging by David Crowe's analysis of the recent dinner in Canberra ("The great republican gulf", 29/11), that constitutionally Australia can best be symbolised by a limping kangaroo. The republicans are bedevilled by a major split on how a president should be elected. The monarchists are caught in an awkward position by having to support a head of state who lives on the other side of the world and is not really Australian. The country is split fifty-fifty on whether or not to go republican. To make matters worse, immigration since World War Two has made us "the nation of a thousand peoples", something good for culture and fine dining, but bad for genuine national solidity in times of peril. There is no easy way out of our invidious situation. The best compromise would surely be to establish an independent Australian throne, to be inaugurated by a young person of royal blood from the UK marrying an Australian and founding a new dynasty here.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

     So, Janet Albrechtsen thinks we should become a republic because a relatively minor Royal (8th in line to the throne) is in the spotlight (Australian 21/11/19). Of course, were she an American, I doubt that she would be calling for a return to the monarchy because of the various matters being revealed in the impeachment process against the president! She forgets that we have our own constitutional arrangements which are subject only to the Australian people and to no one else.  We have nothing whatsoever to do now with the British parliament and because we, not anybody else, have opted to remain under the Crown, the Governor-General, as representative of the Queen, is our executive head of state. We therefore have the best of both worlds.  We have a system that blocks politicians from absolute power, and we have the independence to decide for ourselves on whether we wish to retain our current system or move to another.  It is the people’s choice, not the Queen’s, not the politician’s and certainly not that of Janet Albrechtsen or her friends in the media. Only the people.

Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League

To The Australian         Telling the truth about Aboriginal matters will not lead in the direction espoused by Chris Kenny ("Truth is at the heart of an indigenous voice", 23-24/11). It is not good enough to complain about "dishonest conservative opposition" without specifying what that is and why it is dishonest. Secondly, the people whom he describes as "constitutional conservatives" are not really such at all. The conservative position, well expressed recently by Greg Sheridan ("A constitution that distinguishes us by race: this way madness lies", 14/11), is that constitutionally all citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of their ethnicity or where and when their ancestors lived. The controversial Uluru statement (its claim to come "from the heart" is questionable and it could perhaps more accurately be characterised as political propaganda) very definitely does seek to unjustly extend especial privileges to a group that has its own ethnicity or racial mix as well as having (not always wholly by any means) "traceable inheritance rights to this land". As is typical of proponents of Aboriginal constitutional recognition, Kenny does not really address the powerful arguments against it which are now on the public record.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian        Ian Maloney's assertion (25/11) that "a constitutionally established voice to parliament" would not "diminish the parliament's authority" is unconvincing. There is already a peculiarly powerful push in many quarters in support of what is really a policy of Aboriginal separatism. How many MPs or which parties could be expected to resist this, once such a significant change to the constitution has been effected? How firmly would parliament resist unjust and selfish demands from the constitutionally entrenched "voice"? Scott Morrison and his government need to pause for reflection on this issue. They have already done damage by appointing known partisan activists to the ministry and to the new committee. A much more impartial and truth-based approach to "Aboriginal rights" is required. Justice demands it. The future security and political stability of this nation needs it.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

To The Age          In his elegant and eloquent musings about royalty and crowns ("Irrelevant yet significant, monarchies endure", 27/11) Dennis Altman states that monarchies are "deeply antithetic to democratic principles", but is this really so? It depends how you view the very idea of democracy. This does not necessarily mean equality or "one person, one vote". It can also mean rule with which the people are happy because it is in consonance with human nature and the variety of characters found among human persons and communities, some vastly more gifted than others. An aristocracy without universal franchise could fit the bill, but not a money-based oligarchy. Its fun to make fun of royal persons and the institution itself, whether in Australia or Id. However, at the heart of monarchy are serious values conducive to human welfare to which Altman does not do adequate justice: sacred truth, human dignity, chivalry and ceremonial beauty. Nor is it true that "few of us take much notice" of our ongoing homage to the Queen.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian         Greg Sheridan tells us ("Boris and Donald as masters of their universe", 16-17/11) that "the exit deal Johnson negotiated with the EU is far from ideal but it is a thousand times better than Theresa May's surrender deal." Is it, however, a guaranteed pathway to a genuine (that is, complete) withdrawal from the EU that truly honours the clear decision of the 2016 referendum? Sheridan does not say, but his language seems inflated, even self-contradictory, which is not reassuring. Two factors, however, suggest he is right: the fact that the "hard right"  or "extreme Eurosceptic" Conservative MPs have accepted the deal and the willingness of Nigel Farage to facilitate a Conservative victory at the expense of his Brexit Party's numbers.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian          No, you are wrong in your editorial ("Big dangers in Farage's antics", 6/11). It is not Nigel Farage that threatens to derail Brexit but Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. Farage stands unequivocally for a clear and clean break with the EU. Johnson's refusal to enter an alliance with the Brexit Party (obviously necessary to give the best possible chance of defeating the Remain camp) is merely the latest betrayal of the British people by the Tories. In the past, under Ted Heath, the Conservatives misled voters about what entry into the 'European Common Market' would mean. David Cameron, an Establishment man, called the 2016 referendum confident, as he has admitted, that Remain would win. Theresa May produced a proposed "deal" with the EU that amounted to surrender (a pseudo-Brexit). Boris Johnson has largely taken that over. If the British people really want Brexit, they must take the bull by the horns and vote Farage and his party into power.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Age        Waleed Aly pulls a long bow ("New walls, old prejudices", 8/11) in associating support for Brexit with "believing in the eternal supremacy of the British Empire". Everyone knows that the days of imperial grandeur are long gone, except in profitable period films like "Vanity Fair". What is at issue is the future of a British way of life distinguished by the degree of personal freedom given to subjects of the realm and the legal tradition underpinning that. The Brexit Party (more so than the Conservatives) is the freedom party; and walls, essentially, are beneficial to culture and civilisation, as well as to liberty.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

     In the movie Avengers: Endgame (2019), the main villain Thanos has obtained the power to do virtually everything. He has this power by having magic stones that control all aspects of reality. In the previous movie, because he was a population controller, he eliminated half the universe (why just half?), but the Avengers time travelled and reversed this, just like the election of Donald Trump. In this movie he time travels too, and attempts now to totally destroy the universe and remake it, atom by atom, just as the Democrats want to do to traditional America, because so long as any one traditionalist remains, they will resist. The Democrats are like Thanos, seeking to destroy the US, and the West, also down to the last atom. The impeachment of Trump will be the turning point:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/health/snyder-if-donald-trump-impeached-all-hell-will-break-loose-america
  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/donald-trump-impeachment-inquiry-lynching-054234
  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-donald-trump-is-impeached-that-will-be-a-sign-that-all-hell-is-about-to-break-loose-in-america

“Most Americans don’t realize it yet, but in just a few weeks we will witness one of the most critical moments in American history.  Right now the Democrats in the House of Representatives are drafting articles of impeachment, and it is expected that there will be a vote by the end of this year.  If President Trump is impeached by the House, that will set off a chain of events that nobody is going to be able to control, and if the U.S. Senate ultimately decides to remove Trump from office, all hell will break loose in America.  There are tens of millions of very loyal Trump supporters in this country, and many of them are extremely passionate.  Simply impeaching Trump would represent a “breaking point” for many of them, and if Trump is actually removed from office by a Republican-controlled Senate it is inevitable that we would see a very frightening explosion of righteous anger, and at that point there wouldn’t be much of anything that could be done to calm them down.  A large percentage of the population would instantly lose all the faith they ever had in our political system, and unfortunately there would be widespread civil unrest in the streets.

     George Soros, the globalist who never sleeps, working 24/7, relentless pushing on to victory, in 2020 he believes:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/soros-predicts-globalist-victory-2020

“Progressive billionaire George Soros believes that the global surge in nationalism - from Brexit to Trump - is an aberration, and that globalism will make a resurgence after the 2020 US election. In a recent interview with the New York Times (in which he also endorsed Elizabeth Warren), the 89-year-old investor opined last week in a collection of essays called "In Defense of Open Society" that his brand of globalism - which he defines as an integrated, open society which abides by the law (which is easy to do when allied lawmakers are making them) - is out of favor. Instead, Trump's "America First" approach, debates over Brexit and trade wars have taken precedent. Looking out a window with expansive views of Central Park, Mr. Soros spoke about China, Mr. Trump and who he thinks will face off against the president in next year’s election. Notably, Mr. Soros is convinced that the arc of history may soon turn back his way, that Mr. Trump’s election and Brexit were the nadir of anti-globalism and that a backlash to that nationalism is coming. “Trump is still doing a tremendous amount of damage,” he said, lifting himself up a bit in his desk chair. “I mean, just the last week what he has done in the Middle East has been devastating for America’s influence in the world,” he said, referring to the withdrawal of American troops from Syria. -New York Times

     An update from the US trenches:
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50166557

“The head of Major League Baseball has said the organisation is investigating a tweet from an umpire that threatened civil war if US President Donald Trump was impeached. Rob Drake's now-deleted tweet said he planned to buy an AR-15 rifle. It comes amid an impeachment inquiry in the US House of Representatives. Mr Drake, 50, has not commented and has deactivated his Twitter account. He has been a full-time major-league umpire since 2010. In the tweet, Mr Drake said he planned to buy an assault rifle "because if you impeach MY PRESIDENT this way, YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER CIVAL (sic) WAR!!! #MAGA2020", according to a copy seen by ESPN. It reportedly followed another tweet that read: "You can't do an impeachment inquiry from the basement of Capital (sic) Hill without even a vote! What is going on in this country?" Major League Baseball (MLB) Commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters before a World Series game on Wednesday that the tweet would be looked into. The president of the Major League Baseball Umpires' Association has declined to comment.”

To The Australian         The two voices to whom the British people should most of all be listening as they prepare for the coming elections are both those of dead men: George Orwell and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. They showed in their great novels with terrible clarity what life becomes like in modern, post-industrial states if political freedom is lost. In order for a genuine Brexit to happen and such freedom to be regained for the UK, there needs to be an unequivocal alliance in the next five weeks between the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party. Then, after a genuine Brexit has been achieved, the new British government needs to bring to an end the life of the Tony Blair created Supreme Court and avoid further corruption of British legal tradition. It is astonishing that these matters are not at the forefront of public debate at this stage.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic