Friday, May 06, 2016

Leftist newspaper slams leftist white flight

The inner north is home to the most left-wing of Melbourne's residents. I occasionally walk through an inner suburban area called Fitzroy. Much of it is beautifully historically preserved and it gives you a wonderful sense of spirit of place. Its residents, however, are not traditionalists but Greens supporters (despite the nearest countryside being at least 20km away). The old Victorian era town hall is draped with banners proclaiming "refugees are welcome here" and the Palestinian flag flies from the mast.

Back in the 1960s, however, there were plans to demolish these suburbs and to build housing commission towers. The plans were only partly carried out. And so adjoining beautiful, historic, leftist Fitzroy are areas of ugly towers mostly housing Muslim refugees from Africa.

Enter The Age, Melbourne's left-liberal daily newspaper. It assigned a reporter to look at where the Greens voting residents of Melbourne's inner north send their children to school. And guess what? Despite the "refugees are welcome here" banners on the town hall, these Greens supporters have chosen to send their children away from the refugees, to be educated amongst other white children.

You can see from the graph above that the primary schools located closest to the refugee estates (e.g. Fitzroy Primary School) have only a very small percentage of students from English speaking families. The "white flight" is taking place to the schools to the north such as Clifton Hill Primary.

Here is how The Age put it:
"White flight" is shaping education in Melbourne's inner city state schools, leading to unofficial segregation along race and class.

In the Greens-voting socially liberal enclaves of the inner north, white middle class families have deserted the schools closest to the remaining commission housing towers, while competing for spots in a handful of schools seen to have greater prestige.

Schools such as Fitzroy Primary, Carlton Primary School and Mount Alexander College in Flemington have become catchments for poor students of African heritage, many of whom live in the flats. Between 71 to 94 per cent of students attending these schools speak a language other than English at home.

The average median house price in some of these school's suburbs teeters around $1 million, yet about 60 to 80 per cent of students at these schools are among the poorest in the state.

They've been called "sink schools" – schools drained of affluent families and high achieving students.

White families with higher incomes are opting to enrol their children in over-subscribed schools a few suburbs away.

They favour Clifton Hill, Princes Hill and Merri Creek primary schools, where 79 to 84 per cent of families are among the state's richest.

These schools – with just 10 to 30 per cent of students speaking a language other than English at home – offer accelerated programs, overseas trips and boast above-average NAPLAN scores.

Abeselom Nega, an Ethiopian refugee and community leader, is alarmed by this trend.

"The white parents don't send their kids to these schools because all they see is black kids," says Mr Nega, who sits on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

One writer for The Age believes that the parents are right to send their children away from the local schools. She justifies this on personal experience. Her own left-wing parents sent her to a local school with the following results:
Ours was a school in which the majority of students came from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and the literacy level was so low that instead of asking us to read the assigned VCE English text, our teacher walked into class one day with a video and said, "I'd ask you to read the book, but let's face it, none of you will, so here's the movie version instead."

It was a school in which, if you read for fun, you hid it lest you got your head kicked in. (A shame, since our school's version of an "accelerated learning program" was the teacher pretending not to notice when you stopped listening and quietly read a book under your desk.)

As an adult, probably to alleviate my white, middle-class guilt (certainly not because I valued education), I volunteered to help with reading in a grade 5 class at the local primary school – one of the "ghetto housing commission schools" mentioned in The Age's story. As the highly competent teacher struggled to teach the kids who could barely read the alphabet while simultaneously challenging the kids who had an average grade 5 reading age, it was clear she had an impossible task.

...The idea that it's the so-called "high achieving" kids' social responsibility to sacrifice their own education to somehow drag up the level of their peers (by osmosis?) is obnoxious and entitled.

Is it so hard to imagine that a parent might not want their kid to be the one to suffer? Or, as the patron saint of the socially conscious (and Probably Not Racist) filmmaker Michael Moore said, when criticised for not sending his child to the local state school, "our daughter is not the one to be sacrificed to make things better".

But here's the thing. Alice Williams is herself a leftist (she is particularly radical on women's issues). And I don't see why leftists should be able to promote open borders, mass migration and a large influx of refugees and then say "but I don't want my own child to be negatively affected by this".

The leftist mindset is maddening because there is an assumption that a certain type of white lefty-liberal lifestyle will continue whilst the society around them is dissolved by leftist policies. They are managing it for now, but it is going to catch up with them soon enough.


  1. "...And I don't see why leftists should be able to promote open borders, mass migration and a large influx of refugees and then say "but I don't want my own child to be negatively affected by this"."

    It isn't JUST their children; THEY ALSO don't want to suffer from the negative effects of their impossible and unworkable demands so that they can make themselves feel more 'tolerant' and 'accepting' than anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
    The classical case of the 'NIMBY' ("Not in MY backyard!!") at work.
    Leftism goes together with lying and hypocrisy like peanut butter and jelly.

    1. Yes, good comment. They want the "feelgoods" for themselves but not the negative effects.

  2. People who promote this ultimately genocidal policy for other Whites need to be held accountable. And for many, that must mean financial punishment AND being made to live in these 'diverse' areas they push so readily for others. And live there permanently, NO escape.

    After all: Is what they promote even so innocent as they pretend?

    Most of these people are motivated by the leftist agenda to accept refugee/immigrants (that always means non-white immigrants) because of:

    i) envy and resentment of other Whites in society who they want destroyed

    ii) anti-white hatred of the civilization they takes for granted.

    iii) status seeking over others to manipulate and control them, gain resources from them, shape them like tools to their ends.

    iv)indifference to the interests of ethnic Whites while demanding that very accommodation for others.

    The list goes on: do not overlook them.

  3. Perusing some of the comments on the article, there's a lot of "doing what's best for MY children" in response to accusations of racism. Nothing unusual here. Parents know the pressure is on to succeed in this liberal modern paradise of haves and have nots. Tellingly there's is no attempt to critique any further than "too much immigration". The dystopian reality of different racial and ethnic groups colliding and competing in a managerialist, market driven society is present but largely unexamined outside the scope of "in what ways can we tinker with the current system and how much money do we need to pour into this 'problem' until it goes away"

    But the problem will never go away, as surely as different ethnic groups will never "go away"

    1. Good idea to look at the comments, I hadn't done that. Here is the first comment:

      "When I moved to Melbourne I sent my son to one off the schools mentioned in the story. After 1.5 years it became apparent he didn't fit in socially and wasn't doing well academically so we moved him to another inner city school that more matched the demographic we are in. He is now thriving both socially and academically. The import this here is that I just want to do what is best for my son, it's not racially or politically motivated, who I vote for is completely irrelevant (it is the Green by the way, what other choice do I have?). My son's happiness and well being is the important point."

      So this Age reader admits he is a Greens supporter (the Australian Greens are for expanding the refugee programme). He sent his child to a school with the refugees for a year or so, but things didn't go well. But instead of facing up to the issues of the refugee programme he talks instead of wanting his child to be in a school that "matched our demographic" (i.e. wealthy white liberals). It's a kind of doublethink, isn't it? This Greens supporter would say it is "discriminatory" to have an immigration policy that matches Australia's existing demographics, but that it is OK for him to search out a school for his child that matches his own demographic.

      Also, if these leftists want what is best for their sons, why push a "rainbow coalition" politics that is designed to displace white men? Why push a feminist politics that sees white men as the enemy? Why push a politics that further dissolves family life? The sons of these families are going to be put at an ever greater disadvantage because of their parents' politics.

    2. They obviously lack the insight to think beyond the present, or are deliberately suppressing the contemplation of it. It doesn't require any particular genius to calculate that as the relative numbers of the ineducable increases it will be correspondingly increasingly more difficult and expensive to access schools of a desirable ethnic profile. The result will be a slow, irreversible decline of such regions to the original societal levels of the refugees. Zimbabwe is a good illustration, a land which offers few opportunities for the soft, dream life-style of the modern liberal. At least they'll get closer to nature.

    3. The comments are hilarious. My favourite is the one that informs us that it's not the migrants they're worried about, it's those dreadful poor whites. It's a breathtaking example of the venomous hatred leftists have anyone who isn't middle-class.

  4. Here's another thought: these people are determined for their social class and subculture to survive (wealthy, white liberal), but not for their larger ethny or nation to survive. They identify with the one but identify against the other. It's not going to work out in the long run.

    1. It does seem like an intractable problem for liberals. One the one hand they have to studiously avoid mentioning the reality of ethnicity and race, and on the other hand the reality of underperforming minority groups is being thrust into the spotlight as a problem that the government needs to address, even if that means forcing parents to send their children to schools where they know their children they will be treated very differently, and will probably suffer for that treatment, due to their ethny and background. I note too that one commenter, having given an eminently reasonable explanation for not sending their children to an underperforming school, is promptly accused of classism. Lose-lose.

  5. "Very poor attempt at rationalising what is the very definition of racism, and in the process also displaying for us what hypocrisy means.
    "didn't fit in socially" and moving to "another inner city school that more matched the demographic we are in" are just code words, a more polite way to say "we wanted to be with people who are more like us and speak our language". So you are discriminating based on race and culture, are you not?

    How does a person with this dysfunctional attitude even cope with life? When racism is wanting to be with people like you who speak your own language...

    Probably a radical humanist; ironically they seem to be ones who pop up in comments and aggressively deny people a guilt free relationship with their own ethny.