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

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

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

     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.”

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

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

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

     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

     Richard Wolstencroft is my very favourite Australian public intellectual, brave and no bs, always going to the heart of the matter, and I want to be just like him when I grow up, if I grow up.
  https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/10/elite-replacement-theory-toward.html#more

     He has a theory, he dubs “elite replacement theory,” a thing of considerable intellectual beauty:

     This is the one that we have been waiting for: Trump himself is predicting civil war in America if the Left get their evil ways:
  https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-dems-want-impeach-president-exposing-crime-elect-the-criminal.html
  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/30/donald-trump-shares-pastors-warning-of-civil-war-if-impeached/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20190930&utm_content=Final

“President Donald Trump shared a warning from Pastor Robert Jeffress on Fox News of a new “civil war-like fracture” if Democrats removed him from office. Pastor Robert Jeffress said: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats can’t put down the Impeachment match. They know they couldn’t beat him in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, and they’re increasingly aware of the fact that they won’t win against him in 2020, and Impeachment is the only tool they have to get rid of Donald J. Trump – And the Democrats don’t care if they burn down and destroy this nation in the process. I have never seen the Evangelical Christians more angry over any issue than this attempt to illegitimately remove this President from office, overturn the 2016 Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him. If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.”

     This is a segment of a great article by Brett Stevens where he shows that the American public was sucked in to supporting the 1960s changes to immigration which have led to the present coming of whites being a minority in less than 24 years. The same thing happened in Australia in the post WQWII era, and the elites time and time again, stampede the sheep, as they are going to try to do again with the indigenous referendum. Remember, the majority supported the same sex plebiscite.
  http://www.amerika.org/politics/when-seeking-the-weak-link-look-toward-the-voters/

“Our biggest problem arises from the inherent tendency of people to form crowds around lowest common denominator solutions which causes people to fixate on “problems” that are in fact effects of which either structural defects or tendencies of nature are the cause, and this motivates people to engage in symbolic choices instead of realistic ones. Consider how Americans voted themselves into oblivion: A June 1965 Gallup poll found that 39% preferred maintaining present levels, almost as many said they should be decreased (33%), and only a few (7%) favored increased immigration. But in the end, a majority of the public approved of changing the laws so that people would be admitted on the basis of their occupational skills rather than their country of origin. And after the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, fully 70% said they favored the new law. The law was symbolic in the sense that it operated on feelings, principles, and moral standards instead of looking at end results. Silly people value means-over-ends (principles, methods, and symbols more important than end result) because it makes them feel good and share that social feeling of peace, love, comradeship, and unity with others. When you pass a symbolic law, like one designed to stop migrant children from drowning at your border, it proves immensely popular at first. This is a backdoor weakness in democracy, or more broadly, in humanity.

     The new class are getting mighty excited about the rapid decline in the US white population, for the crass reason that they believe it will deliver Democrats to dictator power, forever, creating a communist multiracial diverse wonderland, or so they think:
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-24/decline-of-white-working-class-in-u-s-spells-trouble-for-trump

“The number of white working-class Americans dropped below 40% of the population for the first time last year, reflecting demographic shifts that could pose a challenge for President Donald Trump’s election in 2020.
White Americans without a four-year college represented 71% of the population in 1975. Their decline as a share of the population is expected to continue and they will no longer be the largest demographic group by 2034, according to a blog post Tuesday from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.”

     What value Australian citizenship? Nothing, nothing at all, it seems:
  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/push-for-non-citizens-to-receive-right-to-vote-in-australian-elections

“A parliamentary committee reviewing the May federal election has been told more than 2.2 million people living in Australia are being denied a vote because they are not citizens. French-born graphic designer Sylvain Garcia, who has lived in Australia for eight years, has urged the electoral matters committee to overturn a law change made in 1981 that restricted the right to vote to citizens, rather than permanent residents. "Today, at 29 years old, I feel more Australian than French," he wrote in his submission. "I know many permanent residents feel the same and I can't help but wonder why this huge chunk of people living in Australia cannot be part of the decisions made for the country."

     Lord James of Blackheath has been threatened with the police, told to retract the comments he made in the House of Lords on EU Defence Union, and is facing demands to resign and remain silent on the issue from now on. On Monday last week, Lord James of Blackheath attended a conference held at the Royal United Services Institute entitled ‘EU Defence Union - the threat to democracy, industry and alliances’. The conference was also attended by, amongst others, NATO and Ministry of Defence advisor Professor Gwythian Prins and a number of former senior military officers. The briefing covered the consequences for the UK if the defence and security sections of Theresa May’s Brexit ‘deal’ and its associated ‘Political Declaration on the Future Relationship’ are approved. At that meeting it was agreed that Lord James would raise the issue in the House of Lords, which he did four days later. Video footage of that intervention has received wide public distribution on Twitter. We have this wonderful paper called Yellowhammer, which tells us all the dreadful things that will happen if we do go no-go. My secretary has an alternative list that I have complied called the Black Vulture, which is my list of the things that people do not know about which will happen if we do not go no deal….

  Full Article: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union

     With the recent blow up with Canadian pm Justin Trudeau having past “racist” photos of him exposed wearing brownface, a race slur towards brown people, the issue arises as to why this fool, or is it tool, ruling anyway. Here are some insights:
  https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/09/trudeaus-only-racism-is-against-White-Canadians.html#more

“Trudeau doesn't really have much else going for him. When he got the thumbs up from Liberal Party apparatchiks and then the Canadian voters, he had youth and slightly above average good looks on his side. But basically he was an idiot or a male bimbo. But what he did have was a kind of Canadian vacuousness about him. My sense is that this was the very thing that perversely appealed to voters. Indeed, if it wasn't this, I am hard pressed to see what else they could see in him, as this vacuousness surrounds Trudeau in the same way that bent light surrounds a Black Hole. The most obvious example of this is in Trudeau's penchant for dressing up in funny, non-White ethnic costumes. Right now this is in the news because—sacré bleu!—the PM once put on blackface, which for some never adequately explained reason is about as bad as eating a baby or worse!

     This is a good article about the coming civil war in America, inevitable because of what I call, “the Great Divorce,” that liberal and conservatives have a totally mutually incommensurable paradigms, and that social conflict cannot be avoided:
  https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/no_matter_who_wins_in_2020_there_will_be_blood.html#ixzz5zbmuVKqd

“The machinations of an illiberal left, on display in its ever-increasing violence accompanied by the ululations of a propagandist media in contravention of an imaginary “white supremacist” right, have riven the nation into diametrically opposed camps. The right will never accept socialism, while the left will accept nothing less.

     (Own report) - Berlin's foreign policy is in support of Scottish nationalists, preparing to hold a second referendum to secede from the United Kingdom. Last week, Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish regional government and chairperson of the Scottish National Party (SNP), was received in the German capital for confidential talks with representatives of the German foreign policy establishment, including with Michael Roth (SPD), Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Officially, the meetings were focused on the Brexit, bitterly opposed by Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists. However, Sturgeon was, in fact, also pleading for support for her secessionist project and to bring Scotland, as an independent country into the EU. About three years ago, German government representatives had already been in support of this plan. However, a reliable Scottish majority, needed for this project, is nowhere in sight.

more…
  https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/8056/

At no time in the modern history of the British Westminster parliament have we seen a government so pitted against its parliament and now the highest Court in the land.

A very basic chronology is:

The Cameron Conservative government held a referendum in June 2016 with 51.89% of votes cast to leave the European Union. David Cameron then stepped down and was replaced by Theresa May as Prime Minister.

Ms May was unable to secure a successful vote in the British parliament on any deal agreed to by the European Union because a number of Conservative MPs voted with Labour against all the proposals she put forward.  She resigned in June 2019 and was replaced by Boris Johnson the next month.

Unable to get backing from the parliament to leave the European Union without any deal, Boris Johnson then sought to prorogue the parliament for around five weeks until 14 October, two and a half weeks prior to the final exit date (from the EU) of 31 October.

Johnson then formally advised the Queen, by telephone, to prorogue parliament between the 9th to 12th September and to hold a Queen’s Speech on 14th October.  On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle resulting in an Order in Council proroguing the parliament between those dates.

I must admit that there are things troubling me about the decision of the UK Supreme Court which held that the Queens proroguing of the British Parliament was void.

In the first instance, how can ‘advice’ in itself be considered to be unlawful?  Improper is one thing but unlawful is quite another particularly since it appears that the court was not aware of what that advice actually was or how it was worded.

Secondly, how is it possible for any court to then say that an Order of the Queen was null and void?

     I recently criticised an article by leading neo-masculinity/barbarianism writer, Jack Donovan, where he argued that all one can really advocate in US post politics now is support for the US Bill of Rights. Well, so much the worse for Australia, England and other countries without one, and even having one does not mean much, as recent article expressed:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bill-rights-turns-230-and-what-do-we-have-show-it-nothing-good

“It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the Constitution - as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?
Nothing good. In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned. We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story. “We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties. The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights. A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.