To The Age Ian Usman Lewis (15/7) needs to explain to us, if he can, how and why an inserted recognition of Aboriginal peoples into the Constitution would not be discrimination, and unjust discrimination at that. As for those seeking to establish a treaty or treaties, including the Victorian and Queensland governments, they are barking up the wrong tree. Only the federal government has the power to negotiate treaties and that applies to other nations, not a small group of our own folk misleadingly titled "First Nations".
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
I would like a dollar for every article I have seen by academics taking the line against populism; blah, blah, racist, put the deplorables back their place, racist, blah, blah. President Trump and Brexit feature in their complaint’s list. How could Trump have become president? How could Pauline Hanson have got elected? Well, this is known as democracy you totalitarian thugs! It simply shows the true colours of those who critique populism from their new class positions of oppressive power. The new class have the delusion of moral superiority and so-called high IQ, but in the evolutionary scheme of things, this new class is merely parasitic, and will disappear once the perverse conditions that led to its creation are removed. These petty tyrants have zero survival capacity and depend upon deplorables to protect and feed their frail bodies.
But, in the US, the movement is even more vibrant, where open borders, literally has become the signature of the Democrat presidential candidates, not just the insane academics, as if the entire genre has become a suicide cult:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/07/the-open-borders-party/print/
The elites can hold multiple contradictions and falsehoods in their head, so long as it advances their agenda. Consider:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/28/jimmy-carter-claims-donald-trump-an-illegitimate-president/
“Former President Jimmy Carter suggested Friday that President Trump’s victory in 2016 was illegitimate due to Russian interference in the election. During a panel discussion on human rights issues at the Carter Center conference, the former president contended that a proper investigation into the extent of Russian meddling would, in fact, reveal President Trump did not win the White House.”
I have not done a job on Germany’s Merkel for a while, so let’s go. It seems that Merkel has had the shakes recently, something we saw Hillary Clinton do, but on a grander scale during the 2016 election. The mainstream media has reported this, without much reflection of why. Surely, she is shaking with joy at the thought of totally destroying traditional Germany and ending the life blood of a people? What else could make globo-commos dance to the beat of migration?
https://www.rt.com/news/462140-merkel-zelensky-shaking-ill/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48680623
Even though way back in 2010 Murky Merkle said that multiculturalism had failed, she decided to test it out one more time. By failed, she probably meant, “did not polish of a country quickly enough.”
https://www.technocracy.news/merkel-admits-german-multiculturalism-has-utterly-failed/
To The Age In answer to Michael Mansell (25/6) I suggest that, while the national anthem is a white people's production, it can still be shared today in 2019 by all Australians. Australia, as a nation, is certainly young by world standards; and our relative freedom is one of our greatest treasures. There is no "slight on Aboriginal people" in it; and no living Australian has "been here thousands of years." Aboriginals who "don't feel at all free" are surely a minority among their own people. It is not the anthem that is "divisive" but obsessed activists like Mansell whose actual words suggest that he wants indigenous separatism rather than a united Australian people. The great majority of Australians will never buy that and are happy to be part of a "euro-centric" country.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
Australians must resist the pressure to fragment our nation
One of the greatest strengths of Australia in a world that is always more or less dangerous is its integrity as a nation. One continent, one people constitutionally and politically. It is an elementary fact of human existence that unity of a community gives strength, while disunity weakens it and may even eventually bring it to an end. Thus it is surprising that such intense efforts are being mounted by a de facto coalition of idealists, corporate bodies, mainstream media and the major political parties to achieve what is euphemistically and misleadingly termed “indigenous constitutional recognition”, but which really amounts to a decisive step on the way to splitting Australia in two. Indeed, it is so odd that it is reasonable to ask whether the power of this movement, at bottom, does not derive from an extra-national elite that has its own agenda which has little to do with Aboriginal welfare but a great deal to do with control of peoples and the corralling of wealth and power for ultimately selfish purposes.
To The Australian Neither John Wylie ("Indigenous call deserves response from the heart", 18/6) nor Kenneth Wiltshire ("Voice to Parliament too important to get wrong", 18/6) has provided a successful and convincing case for constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. As for Wylie's vague, sentimental and untrustworthy assertions, Australians generally are under no obligation, legal, moral or spiritual, to engage in "a generous and respectful accommodation with indigenous Australians." He does not address the questionable status in the context of constitutional change, of Australians identifying as "indigenous" or the consequent doubt as to the validity of their case. As for Wiltshire, it is ingenuous of him to state that "it is hard not to wonder what all the fuss is about regarding this proposal", when he makes no effort to counter the well-established case that constitutional entrenchment in any form would be fundamentally divisive of this nation, threatening our internal stability and national security, and also fundamentally inequitable towards all non-indigenous Australians.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian Australia appears to be shirking a family obligation ("Don't deny us sanctuary, white farmers tell Dutton", 19/6). The government should honour the policy espoused last year by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton to effect a special refugee intake of persecuted white South Africans. We owe this to these people because they are kith and kin of the majority of us Australians. We admire Jews and Aboriginals for fighting for the interests of their peoples, even if we disagree with some of their policies. So why not the same loyalty to our own? Moreover, they will make excellent new Australians and benefit the whole nation.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
It doesn’t take much of an issue to generate calls for a Bill of Rights. People believe it will enhance their freedoms. In fact a Bill of Rights can restrict freedoms because it actually prescribes all rights available. Obviously then, any ‘right’ not mentioned is forbidden. Our system provides us maximum freedom where we have the lawful right to do anything except the minimum number of things which are forbidden. Not having a Bill of rights can be likened to our road rules where we are free to drive wherever we choose provided we obey any road rules like speed limits and “No Entry” signs.
Ken Grundy
To The Age You are right that any new Conservative leader in the UK will need to show good judgment and diplomatic skill in seeking a viable path forward for the nation ("Johnson as PM not a comforting thought", 17/6). However, the "great complexities" of achieving constitutional severance of Britain from the EU are not beyond the power of Boris Johnson or any other prime minister and his team. What may prove more intractable is the sheer political power of the "Remain" camp who naturally do not feel that "a narrowly won referendum" de-authorises their resistance. The British people as a whole need to bring goodwill, integrity, magnanimity and intelligent compromise to bear in this fraught situation. Let us hope they find a fruitful way forward.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Australian Maurice Newman sagely notes that Scott Morrison must "pursue a course more consistent with traditional Liberal Party values" ("Political elites face the wrath", 10/6). He and his colleagues also need a carefully thought out strategy to gradually shift the cultural atmosphere of Australia more to the conservative and traditional side. That is no mean challenge. Newman touches on many of the policies needed: rejection of the "human-induced global warming" scam; protection of Australia's national sovereignty and political independence from the selfish ambitions of elites favouring global governance; and firm protection of our borders with a realistic immigration policy. The PM also needs to back the country away from unnecessary and potentially harmful referendums on a republic and constitutional indigenous recognition. Most importantly of all, he needs to display humility and graciousness in admitting that he has been wrong to express support for the latter of these two anti-traditional campaigns.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian The UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove may be right ("Boris brushes off opponent's opening salvo", 12/6) that a hard Brexit approach by Boris Johnson (or whoever wins the leadership of the Conservative Party) will be defeated by a vote of no confidence in the Parliament. He should have added that such a vote would be unethical. While it may be that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons are Remainers, they were not elected to Parliament purely on the Brexit issue, but on many others. Recognising that, they should bow to the clear majority for Leave in the 2016 referendum. To do otherwise will continue the corruption of democracy that is happening in the UK.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Is it really true that the Aboriginal flag "has united everybody, all over Australia, from all the Aboriginal nations" ("Aboriginal flag ban shocks businesses", 12/6)? That looks like the kind of wild exaggeration that revolutionaries have been indulging in for centuries. Such doubts are only reinforced by Laura Thompson's further statement that the flag "represented a struggle and a resistance movement." Yes, it is clearly an expression of the campaign for Aboriginal separatism and the division of this continent into two nations. Such a division is so obviously against the interests of Australians generally that it is astounding that so many more Australians do not speak out more clearly in favour of indissoluble national unity in this context.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Age You are perfectly entitled to defend "the principle of a free media" ("Media must report without fear", 6/6); and you are right to assert further that a free media has "a public-interest duty to report truthfully, responsibly and without fear or favour." Alas, as one who has read your paper regularly for over sixty years, I have to point out that you do not always live up to that ideal. Two areas of discourse at once come to mind. For some months you appear to have censored out of existence that large body of Australians firmly opposed to any form of "indigenous constitutional recognition" or treaty making with indigenous Australians. The other area is responsible right-wing culture, as manifested both in Australia and overseas. There is a yawning gap in your reporting and commentary. This greatly hinders the conservative cause in our nation. Your progressivist lens has been too narrow.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Jackson
To The Age Chris Pearson asserts that Australia "is a secular country" (3/6). Well, yes and no. Our sovereign is a ruler whose authority is vested in the Christian sacred tradition. In certain respects, therefore, we are a Christian nation. Perhaps the main purpose of the republican movement is to bring that situation to an end. The suggestion that "the Coalition sees its victory as a mandate to allow hate speech" is extreme. More truly, the Coalition has promised protection for those Australians, individuals, groups and institutions, who are religious; and this was made necessary by the ferocious campaign against people of faith waged by a significant number of Australians and more or less supported by the ALP/Greens alliance. Perhaps we should regard ourselves as a "free country" in which mutual respect for "the other" is not eroded by fanaticism, whether religious or secular. At the moment that suggests that added protection is needed for the religious sector rather than the secular sector.
Nigel Jackson,
This news is getting a bit dated now, but it is still good enough for we nationalists to gloat over, that Le Pen has crushed globalist mass immigrationist Macron in the EU election exit poll:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/26/le-pen-triumphs-over-macron-in-eu-election-exit-poll/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/27/exclusive-marine-le-pen-emmanuel-macron-should-definitely-resign-but-he-has-neither-the-honesty-to-do-it-nor-the-panache/
“Populist leader Marine Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (National Rally, or RN) have triumphed over sitting French president Emmanuel Macron in the European Parliament elections, according to exit polls. Ms Le Pen declared victory following exit polls showing the RN winning around 24 per cent of the vote, compared to Macron’s La Republique En Marche! (LREM) who, according to projections, has come in second with 22.5 percent of the vote, French newspaper Le Figaro reports. Declaring victory, the RN leader said, “The trust we have been given by the French in designating us as the first party in France but especially as that of the future alternation is an immense honour.” She went on to call for Macron to dissolve the French parliament, saying “it is up to the President of the Republic to draw the consequences” and calling for fresh elections, stating that Macron put his own presidency on the line in the vote.”
To The Australian Australians should be wary of the way in which its new government is handling the question of "constitutional" recognition of our so-called "indigenous people" ("Time is right for indigenous voice to be heard in houses of parliament", 28/5). George Williams states that "the Uluru Statement has built considerable momentum". It also has the capacity to fatally divide the political order of this currently unified and united nation. The claim that polls show that "more than sixty per cent of Australians back the idea" is questionable. Polls are on the nose at the moment. In moving towards a planned referendum on the "voice to Parliament", the PM must ensure that fair publicity and funding is provided for the "no" case.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
Another one bites the dust, and it is about time, too, as British Prime Minister Theresa May resigns in girly tears, and exits stage door left, probably to get some well-paying EU job in the great hive. Yes, they didn’t call her “May” for nothing.
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/uk-prime-minister-theresa-may-set-to-announce-resignation-after-brexit-failure/news-story/373caf7f7b3475c712364e554fa65cbe
I found this statesman from Robert Spencer about May, which hits the nail firmly down into the timber:
To find out the answer to that question, we need to consult, “Their” ABC:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/china-state-media-reaction-to-australian-election-result/11128458
“China's state-owned media outlet Global Times has released an editorial saying it is "far from optimistic again" about Chinese-Australian relations after Prime Minister Scott Morrison's unexpected election win. Key points:
To The New York Times My fellow countryman Waleed Aly has offered an insightful comment on the recent federal elections result, focusing on what he calls our tendency towards caution rather than any "right-wing" or "hard" conservatism in Australia's soul. What he omitted, however, was any reference to the enormous ideological struggle that has been going on here since the Whitlam (ALP) government took office at the end of 1972. There are those of us who are happy with our historical story of British colonisation, the transition to dominion status after federation and the continuation of our Christian sacred tradition and monarchical constitution. We are pleased to go on as part culturally of the Anglosphere. Many other Australians disagree. They do want big change. Away with the monarchy and the flag and any further hanging on to Britain's coat-tails, they cry! They have much more say in our national forums than do we conservatives. Equality rather than class stratification is their preference. Anything smacking of racism is anathema. The essential message of the very close result in these elections is that this intense struggle between the adherents of two different Australias will continue and that the end result is still in doubt.
Nigel Jackson, Melbourne, Australia
