The best compromise would surely be to establish an independent Australian throne

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

Letter to The Editor - Its fun to make fun of royal persons and the institution itself. However...

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

Letter to The Editor - A much more impartial and truth-based approach to "Aboriginal rights" is required

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

Letter to The Editor - As is typical of proponents of Aboriginal constitutional recognition

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

Call for a Republic Ill-Judged

     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

Letter to The Editor - Conservative victory at the expense of his Brexit Party's numbers

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

Letter to The Editor - The Brexit Party (more so than the Conservatives) is the freedom party

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

Letter to The Editor - If the British people really want Brexit, they must take the bull by the horns

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

Letter to The Editor - In a long history that begins with the wisdom of Prince Alfred and the signing of Magna Carta

To The Age        Yes, the British people have indeed reached a turning point ("Brexit election puts UK at historic crossroads", 2/11). However, it is nonsense to suggest that there is any danger of the UK "turning the English Channel into a new Berlin Wall." It is rather a question of whether, collectively, the British people have the insight and the nerve to avoid being further imprisoned within an EU that is busy, as the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights show, in erecting new walls to keep out traditional freedoms that have been rightly cherished by Britons in a long history that begins with the wisdom of Prince Alfred and the signing of Magna Carta. And remember, an entirely independent UK after a successful and genuine Brexit can still participate in European culture and trade with the peoples of Europe.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

Letter to The Editor - Incorporation into the EU threatens the British with the loss of all of these benefits and the effective end of their national story

To The Australian         Greg Sheridan states truly that if Brexit is defeated "the very idea of Britain will be humiliated" ("British poll is truly an election for the ages, a hinge of history", 2-3/11). It is worth asking what that idea is. A triumphalist answer in 2019 that ignores the many failings of the British in their long history will not do. More modestly, it is possible to find an answer in the institution of the English monarchy and the pledges made by the Sovereign at the time of coronation. In simple terms British tradition honours the sacred and recognises its primacy in the affairs of state. Secondly, it upholds an idea of service and an ideal of chivalry drawn from Christian teaching. Thirdly, it recognises the dignity of the person and the crucial importance of political freedom in the life of the nation. Fourthly, it possesses a magnificent legal tradition that, properly wielded, offers the people protections from power-mongers and selfish elites. Incorporation into the EU threatens the British with the loss of all of these benefits and the effective end of their national story.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Farage may well be right, too, that Boris Johnson's deal with the UK is "just not Brexit"

To The Age        A feature of Western European culture since World War Two has been the ongoing demonisation of the so-called "extreme right" or "hard right" in popular and mainstream public forums. Is it possible that this will lead in the UK to a failure to achieve Brexit because the Conservative Party will not form an alliance with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party? Common sense suggests that, with the UK's electoral system of first-past-the-post voting, such an agreement should be forged. Farage may well be right, too, that Boris Johnson's deal with the UK is "just not Brexit" ("Fast-forward to the election", 31/10). Does it really promise a full return of sovereignty and the clear protection of free speech by a traditional legal system?
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

Letter to The Editor - Avoid further corruption of British legal tradition

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

Soros to Rule the World in 2020 By Charles Taylor (Florida)

     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

Continue reading

Early Civil War Rumblings By Charles Taylor

     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.”

Continue reading

Go ahead, make My Day by Impeaching Trump, Taking All Guns and Opening Up the Camps for Conservatives! By Charles Taylor

     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.

Continue reading

Is Hillary Clinton Going from Crazy to Creepy? By Charles Taylor

     There are plenty of articles out there in internet land, indicating that Hillary Clinton is getting ready for her second run against Donald Trump. The degenerate libtards have never recovered from the Trump victory, and many are still saying that Hillary actually won. Yet, if the Red Queen does intend to run, is she mentally fit to do so? There was the weird head shaking during the last election, like she was some sort of defective toy scaring children, but the media has censored that now, or she is better, or she has the right meds. But, what about this?
  https://nypost.com/2019/10/20/hillary-clintons-sad-sick-conspiracy-theories/
  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-video-feud/

“In her efforts to rationalize her 2016 loss, Hillary Clinton has gone full cuckoo. Vladimir Putin not only robbed her, he’s positioning his “assets” to do it again. Doing a podcast with David Plouffe, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, she insisted that Putin is “grooming” a Democrat for a third-party run next year. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton raved. She plainly meant Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, as Plouffe said. Never mind that Gabbard ruled out any third-party bid on CNN in August — or that she’s a veteran who put her life on the line for this country. This follows last week’s New York Times story hinting at the same conspiracy theory, which cited at least two former Clinton aides and which Gabbard slammed onstage at last week’s debate. The former secretary of state (who once proudly offered Putin a giant “reset” button) also tarred 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein as yet another Russian tool, who might elbow out Gabbard. “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which, she might not ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.” Clinton said. “She’s a Russian asset, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” The thought that Americans wouldn’t dare run a third-party candidate on their own — as they’ve done for decades — because it might re-elect President Trump is nowhere on Clinton’s radar screen. In short, she’s doubling down on the actual reason why she lost: her palpable contempt for most Americans.”

Continue reading

Antifa and the Totalitarian Left By Charles Taylor

     There was to be some talkfest that intellectuals from the Dissent Right were to attend, the Scandza meeting, but it seems that Antifa just collapsed the whole thing. I don’t know much about the would-be speakers, this being a European thing, and I being an American, but some other so-called Dissent Right sites, who spend more time criticising people they don’t like on the Right, than attacking the Left, were laughing about it, and that is where we take off here. From what I have seen, antifa will shutdown anyone that they do not like. How about arranging an anti-climate change seminar? Do you think that it would not be a target? Race is just the tip of the suppression ice berg. Thus, anti-feminists can’t even talk about the limits of feminism, anti-abortionists have no voice, ands it is only a matter of time before those sites who attack people from their side get wiped out too.
  https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/10/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-252-the-siege-of-scandza/
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjii8a_azeQ&feature=youtu.be
  https://trad-news.blogspot.com/2019/10/scandza-nazis-cry-about-muh-rights-and.html

     Thus, Facebook has deleted one of the largest Trump fan pages, because, well Trump must be defeated, and we high techers are going to do it this time, so that a multigendered Republic can be created, anything to deconstruct white males, anything. Posts depicting Trump being murdered a fine and never violate Big Tech’s big policies. Bring on the EMP event that roasts this whole rotten system, for it would be better to hunt rats with a rusty spear than to live as a techno-slave, as we do now.
  https://freedomheadlines.com/the-latest/facebook-deletes-one-of-the-largest-donald-trump-facebook-fan-pages-with-3276000-fans/
  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/19/ocasio-cortez-we-need-a-multigendered-multigeographic-united-states/
  https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/10/19/barbra-streisand-shares-photo-of-nancy-pelosi-killing-trump/
  https://gellerreport.com/2019/10/cnn-anti-trump-network.html/
  https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/david-limbaugh/2019/10/18/totalitarian-american-left

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - That is what lies ahead for them, too, if they let slip this chance for escape from totalitarianism

To The Age         It is good to read that "there are a lot of ideologues on the hard Brexit wing who care more for principle than consequences" ("Brexit deal hangs in the balance", 19/10). Such a position is ethically valid. It sounds as though Nigel Farage is correct in stating that Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement with the EU "isn't Brexit." In that case, let's hope it is defeated in the House of Commons as were its Theresa May prototypes. Britons eager to have their nation reclaim its full sovereignty and traditional protection of free speech must not let themselves be fooled by threats or cajolery. They should note the recent EU Court of Human Rights dismissal of an appeal by German politician Udo Pastore against an unjust conviction for speaking his mind in parliament. That is what lies ahead for them, too, if they let slip this chance for escape from totalitarianism.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

Letter to The Editor - This piddling withdrawal deal should be defeated emphatically in the House of Commons

To The Australian        Your editorial ("Only viable Brexit deal on offer", 19-20/10) must be one of the worst in the history of your newspaper and is deeply disappointing to those of us who advocate a genuine Brexit that unequivocally honours the 2016 referendum result. In advising acceptance of what seems to be another pseudo-Brexit proposal you manage somehow to omit any reference to the two key issues, which are the restoration of full national sovereignty and the protection of the principle of free speech which has been fatally cast aside by the EU's Court of Human Rights. As to the latter, that court's recent dismissal of an appeal by German politician Udo Pastore against an unjust conviction for speaking his mind in parliament on a controversial topic is the latest example of tyranny riding rampant through a context of legal dishonesty and chicanery. Those "28 hardline Brexit 'Spartans'" are surely right that Boris Johnson has compromised with the EU too much. This piddling withdrawal deal should be defeated emphatically in the House of Commons.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

Letter to The Editor - The greatest matter at stake is the political freedom of the individual

To The Australian     Troy Bramston blames the wrong person for the Brexit crisis in the UK ("Britain is in chaos and Cameron is to blame", 15/10). Most to blame are members of the political elites who lied repeatedly to the British people from 1962 on as to what joining a common market would mean and then, in later stages, about what political union in "Europe" would mean. Britain's entry into the EU was a con job, pure and simple. Now these elites are trashing democracy by refusing to honour the clear decision of the 2016 referendum. That meant leave fully, and Bramston fudges the issue by unnecessarily asking whether it included departure from both "the economic and political institutions". Of course it did. Nor were the millions who voted to Leave under any moral obligation to define how this would be achieved. Ireland got out of Great Britain fairly quickly last century. Such exits can be managed successfully and they were entitled to trust that their Parliament would organise theirs efficiently. The greatest matter at stake is the political freedom of the individual. There should be much more public analysis and discussion of the Orwellian behaviour of the EU towards the principle of free speech.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic