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

To The Australian        Although I support Brexit 100%, I'm not sure it is accurate of Jennifer Oriel to state that "no one can deny that Brexit represents the will of the British people" ("Born-to-rule Remainers ignoring will of the people", 9/9). It certainly represents a majority in the 2016 referendum and may represent a majority of Britons today; but a large number of UK voters were and are against it. Thus we have the tragedy of a nation deeply divided on a very great constitutional issue. However, the first responsibility for the present chaotic situation undoubtedly rests with elements in the Remain camp including various powerful elites, through their failure to accept a majority preference. They deserve to lose. Let us hope they do, and without violence.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

     Here is a summary about what is happening here in England, whatever that is now, brought to us by our furry friends at the BBC (just think like your ABC only much worse):
  https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-49495567

•    “Prime Minister Boris Johnson set in motion the process to suspend the UK Parliament - which limits the time MPs have to block a no-deal Brexit
•    The suspension - also called prorogation - will happen no earlier than 9 September and no later than 12 September
•    The new parliamentary session will begin on 14 October
•    The UK is set to leave the EU on 31 October with, or without a deal
•    Mr Johnson said suggestions the suspension was motivated by a desire to force through a no deal were "completely untrue"
•    His decision was criticised by Speaker John Bercow who said it was a "constitutional outrage"
•    Jeremy Corbyn called the move "a smash and grab" on democracy and promised to bring forward legislation "to prevent what [the PM] is doing", followed by a vote of no confidence "at some point"
•    Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said "it is not democracy, it’s dictatorship" and Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said it was "a dangerous and unacceptable course"
•    But Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg said the move was a "completely proper constitutional procedure"
•    MPs return from recess on 3 September.”

     God save the Queen! And may He protect her from the insane globalists, who have invoked something of a historical threat:
  https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/08/29/off-with-her-head-soros-funded-best-for-britain-group-threatens-queen-over-brexit/

“The EU loyalist Best for Britain group appeared to invoke the fate of the beheaded King Charles I after Queen Elizabeth II agreed to prorogue (temporarily suspend) Parliament for a few weeks before the Brexit deadline. Following news that the Queen rubber-stamped Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s request to suspend the parliamentary session — the longest-running for almost 400 years — so that his government can bring forward a new legislative programme on October 14th, the George Soros-funded group tweeted that it would “make no sense for the Queen to back this deeply undemocratic, unconstitutional and fundamentally political manoeuvre from the government,” in comments later attributed to its CEO, Naomi Smith. “If the Queen is asked to help, she would do well to remember history doesn’t look too kindly on royals who aid and abet the suspension of democracy,” the anti-Brexit group added darkly, appearing to allude to the fate of the monarch’s ancestor Charles I, who tried to govern without Parliament and was in the end publicly beheaded.”

To The Australian         Henry Ergas ("Brexit reveals what Parliament thinks of the people", 6/9) cites an important statement in 1734 by John Wilkes that the whole power of electors is devolved upon MPs who must "regard only the public good in general". Parliament may indeed be sovereign constitutionally, as Ergas shows, but, once elected, MPs must seek to act honourably and righteously to defend the welfare of the nation. There is good reason to feel that many of the MPs who have voted to frustrate the Government's Brexit plan were not regarding the public good in general, but serving an unelected elite and/or furthering their own careers. As regards the incorporation of the UK in the EU, there is a long history of deception of the public by MPs and elements in the mass media. The duplicity of Remainers has indeed “shattered the complex web of make-believe" that has hidden UK political realities. It turns out that, when the chips are down, Britain is not a democracy but an oligarchy.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Age        Barry Lizmore's claim (6/9) that "democracy is still healthy in Britain", thanks to the parliament's frustration of the government's Brexit plan, is the opposite of the truth. The ongoing efforts of Remainers to dishonour the clear 2016 referendum result show this beyond all doubt. Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay is right ("Brexit in the hands of the Lords") to accuse the Conservative rebels and opposition of "attempting to stop Brexit altogether". The scaremongering objections to a no-deal departure from the EU are a ploy only, an attempt to hide the dishonesty involved.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave