A small group of Hawthorn supporters were walking along Swanstson Street in the city after their loss to the Western Bulldogs when they were suddenly attacked by a larger group of Somalis and Sudanese. One was knocked out and then kicked in the head. You can hear the young Australian men complaining that they no longer feel they can walk around their own city because of the chance of being attacked.
The assault happened near the steps of the Anglican Cathedral, St Paul's, which has chosen to fly a banner from its spire which reads "Let's fully welcome refugees". I looked up some of the material the church has distributed in support of this policy and nowhere is there any disclosure of some of the negative effects of open borders, including a loss of safety on the streets.
When will Whites WAKE UP??
ReplyDeleteAfrica for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for Everyone IS White Genocide.
The agenda is White Genocide. Period. Diversity=White Genocide.
IT's a crime not a policy option. And 'assimilation' is not the issue. You can 'assimilate' 2 million Chinese and Indians in Sydney or Toronto and what you have is a non-white city. The Whites are destroyed and lose their right to their identity and control of their nation
1.White people exist.
2. White people have the RIGHT to exist.
3. White people have the RIGHT to exist AS White people in White Communities and Nations.
Mr. Richardson
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most interesting about this news report is that they have broadcast this news item a number of times. A news item that includes a man being critical of African immigration, this is astonishing!
The thing that is most astonishing is he shown quite clearly as the victim.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Good point. They're not holding to the narrative here. Maybe Apex is worrying some of those who normally go along with things.
DeleteSurely somewhere Australia owns a tropical island which it can gift to these fine people?
ReplyDeleteOff-topic: Mark, take a look at this video from CNN about women having their eggs frozen so they can have biological children after their fertility falls. The whole thing really confirms how obtuse modern society is about these issues. In a saner world, the issues discussed therein would lead to calls for women to marry and start families earlier in life, while they are still able to do so, rather than subjecting themselves to the protracted, expensive, and intrusive, requiring as it does a trip to the operating room, process of egg-freezing. But the blunt spirit of the provocative title--"Your biological clock doesn't give a #@$! about your career"--does not carry through the actual video. Instead, the viewer is subject to a litany of reasons why women should freeze their eggs, complete with defensive justifications of the situation they're in ("so what if I pursued my career? Why shouldn't women be successful?") One woman even says she's 27 and asks if she can wait until 37 to have children; it doesn't seem to occur to anyone to ask "if you want children, why not get married and start having them now?" One of the women involved with the actual product implies medical insurance programs have a moral obligation to cover the cost of egg-freezing--she wants the rest of society, including all the hardworking tax-paying men who were denied the opportunity to have families of their own by women's delay of family-forming, to foot the bill for this costly attempt at an end-run around biology.
ReplyDeletehttp://money.cnn.com/video/news/economy/2016/09/16/this-is-birth-biological-clock.cnnmoney
Well said. I've had the chance to observe women for quite a few years now and I still believe that a woman is most ripe for marriage in her early 20s. It is not just a question of fertility, or even attractiveness, but of women's openness to men and relationships. It's something that is repressed in the modern West, but if we ever get some sort of influence back over the culture, then I do believe that we should allow nature to take its course in this respect as well.
DeleteI've had the same thought. I think people of both sexes have more heady, romantic feelings when they are younger and are more capable of falling in love; I certainly was. Most of these women spending their twenties pursuing grad school, careers, travel, and flings, are still eventually getting married in their thirties, but it's more practical. Getting married and having a baby are "bucket list" items and the husband is just a placeholder, a means to an end. I have to wonder if they really ever love their husbands as much as they could have, if they'd married that guy they fell in love with at 23, but with whom the relationship didn't last because of their Sex and the City lifestyle.
DeleteHermes, exactly. I don't think it's just a case of women being alpha-widowed or having had too many men (though that no doubt contributes). There just seems to be a phase in a woman's development in which there is a certain kind of generous, feminine openness to men and relationships that peaks, as you say, at around 23. It seems to be nature's way of saying "now is the time for pair-bonding".
Delete