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.

To The Australian        Michael Sexton is right to state that the essential issue of Brexit is the question of national sovereignty ("Plenty of spanners thrown into the Brexit works", 18/9). He could have added that the resumption of independence for Britain will be a profound victory for the principle of intellectual freedom, something gravely threatened by the EU's authoritarian attitude to legal issues.     There must surely be an election to resolve once and for all the Brexit puzzle. We must hope that, firstly, the Conservatives and the Brexit Party will co-operate to maximise their joint success and, secondly, that enough Britons have been revolted by the dishonourable sabotage of the popular will, as clearly established in the 2016 referendum, to switch their votes from Remain to Leave.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian         Perhaps we need to take more notice of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price ("I don't do Welcome to Country because it is a modern construct", Cut & Paste, 20/9). Like the "Aboriginal flag", this practice lacks authenticity and is being used to strengthen the forces of Aboriginal separatism. It's a pity, because there is poetry and some truth in it, notwithstanding. A more inclusive statement of remembrance rather than one of spurious welcome would perhaps be a suitable replacement.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Age        Amanda Vanstone ("Let's face it, democracy is messy", 16/9) is right about two things: that the British people "have a grit and resolve that should not be underestimated" and that the EU bureaucracy has "got out of hand" and "is answerable to no-one." Her sympathy for a second referendum on Brexit is misplaced. The 2016 question was presented to the people in clear and unequivocal terms and the result should have been honoured by all concerned. That it has not been has exposed the unwelcome truth that a powerful elite wishes to maintain what is in fact oligarchic rule.     Nothing can hide the fact that a failure of the political class and judiciary to effect a clean and complete Brexit will be a betrayal of both the people and the principles of justice and true democracy.
  Nigel Jackson

To The Australian        Nick Cater is correct to describe Brexit as "the pressing political issue of the day" for Britain ("Deserters help a resolute Boris", 11/9). This is because the result of the current struggle will determine whether for the foreseeable future free speech is returned to the British (by their escape from the jurisdiction of the Kafkaesque European Court of Human Rights) and whether their nation regains full sovereignty. What lover of freedom wants his or her people to be ruled by a supra-national, bureaucratic tyranny? In this context Janet Albrechtsen is right ("The prime minister cannot be in two minds about 18C") to urge our own government to be more proactive on defending intellectual freedom and allowing the expression of "uncomfortable views" so long as physical harm is not being clearly threatened.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Age        Nicole Hemmer is wrong to stigmatise current UK politics as "a bigger farce" ("Fiascos part of a wider unravelling", 9/9). It is much more serious than that and looks like an impending tragedy, with neither side (Leave and Remain) willing to accept defeat, and the nation split almost fifty-fifty on which option should win. The blame for this, however, lies plainly with the Remain lobby, which contains starry-eyed idealists, socialist fanatics and most of the Establishment. In failing to accept the result of the 2016 referendum, these people have trashed both democracy and fair play.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave