Archived 31 Dec 2018 05:50:27 UTC
Leaders from Melbourne's African migrant communities have accused far-right activists
I immediately thought that this would be a hit piece. Far-right? What does that mean?
Forget about the emotional response to the term, and think objectively about the term - does it now mean anything at all?
It used to mean something precisely - a neo-Nazi if they were from recent times, a member of the Italian or German Nazi movements if from the past. Now I see the ABC use it against all sorts of people.
In fact, a popular feminist branch called "antifa", which tends to do the more brutal acts that most feminists don't have the strength to accomplish, calls anyone who votes for a conservative politician a Nazi - even simply wearing a hat that resembles the MAGA hat will get you labelled - then bashed.
Antifa loves to bash those it calls Nazis.
And Feminists pushed the hashtag "Punch a Nazi" right besides them.
So when the ABC starts calling protestors "Far Right", I want to know what evidence they have for it. Did they record antisemitic speech, for example? Was there a call to attack other countries, or to commit genocide against minority groups?
Well, if the ABC knows about such evidence, it has, in its wisdom, kept them from the police, because they weren't charged with any of that.
So what did they do?
They protested legally, as is their right.
"There are unwritten codes you have to live by to ensure you are not threatening to anyone in society."Since when? Oh right - you can't read these unwritten codes - they are invisible ink. You have to be a true believer in Social Justice to be able to perceive them.
"If someone has committed a crime, it is important to try them before the law... "So in other words, they hadn't broken any laws. If the ABC had stopped there, that would be fine. But as Feminists, they just can't do that.
"… but be mindful that we have got people in our society that are more disadvantaged than others."
No, we are not required to judge people according to intersectional social justice. We do not have to look at law-abiding citizens protesting legally, and stop them because they offend someone that the Far Left regards as racially superior to them.
Everyone, regardless of sex, race or creed, so long as they are obeying the law, is free to do what they want. That's it. You do not get to be some moral police force, deciding who is free and who isn't on the basis of their genetics.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NAZIS DID.
"They refused requests from the group and police to stop recording"
the police keep telling us that they can record us at their whim. Why can't we record them? We see the ABC recording the activists. Why can't the activists also record public events?
Why is it the Far Left who gets to decide who is allowed to gather evidence of crimes?
"a dispute broke out, during which police allege a 25-year-old man from the football-playing group assaulted an officer."
Like this one. The activists protested legally. The group they protested against - one often accused world-wide of violence behaviour - was violent in response. To the police. Who then turned around and decided that the white people were responsible because white, and the non-whites were not to be judged to the same standard.
We used to have a good word for that.
We called it RACIST.
"The incident prompted Police Minister Lisa Neville to warn that "racism itself does not make any of us safer""
Here's an idea, Lisa: what about not being racist?
What about judging everyone the same regardless of skin colour? That means locking people up if they commit crimes, even if black, and NOT locking them up if they aren't committing crimes, even if white?
Jeez, why is that beyond SJWs? The bigotry of low expectations!
"I think it is really unfair and wrong for any group in a thriving multicultural society like ours to try and incite hatred or fear for one group against the other," Dr Ngum Chi Watts said.Seriously? I see the ABC doing that all the time. Not a day goes past before they print an article blaming all wickedness on men, and finding excuses for the most brutal acts by women. But recently they have been pushing out anti-white rhetoric, including black supremacist propaganda holding that the people of Britain were black, until the evil white people invaded and murdered them all, and somehow hid that from history.
Turns out SJWs LOVE racial vilification - so long as it is against the correct targets!
"Vic Police Minister says people who 'incite' violence will be held to account"
So... not the people doing the violence - but those who the violent feel provoked them by their existence?
The irony that these are the same people printing domestic violence posters with evil men bashing their wives and saying "I had to do it... she PROVOKED me..."
"However, you can also then take a step back and say 'what has been the reporting when it came to people of colour in the last 12 months?"
This is a term Feminists use to mean "anyone they like". Essentially, they regard all people of English stock as intrinsically evil, and those outside as being better depending on how different they are from that group. But they don't regard them as moral equals - instead, they lower their standards, refusing to treat the "Noble Savages" with the same justice, to view them as just as capable of reason.
They do not see them as equals, but inferiors. It's a peculiar outlook. They see black people as some sort of childlike Eloi race, and white people as the clever but cannibalistic Morlocks.
" "Those kids, irrespective of skin colour, had a right to be there, just like any other person on that beach. And what was really most upsetting was they were just going about their business."
Yes, all of the people had the right to be there so long as they obeyed the law, and that includes protesting and recording. Getting violent means you should be punished irrespective of skin colour.
So why is the Police force, run by SJWs, and the ABC, ditto, opposed to the very principle they repeat so often?
"Irrespective of skin colour - unless you are white, you scum!"
""it's OK to be white" — a phrase commonly used by white supremacists."
Notice that the SJW 'journalist' here inserts their opinion as fact. How many white supremacists do they know? What was the sampling method?
I'm going to take a wild guess here, a complete stab in the dark, and say they made the whole thing up. "It's okay to be white" was deliberately created to expose the racism of Feminists. Feminists KNOW it is not okay to be white - they hate whites, even when they ARE white, and this phrase is their nemesis, and they won't rest until they have manipulated people emotionally, because they cannot deal with the rational argument it presents.
Here's a question for the ABC: Is it, or is it not, okay to be born white?
Because I think we all know the problem for them. They know in their gut that it is not okay, but they can never admit to it.
So, dear reader, ask yourself - is it okay for people to be white? If not, what Final Solution do you propose to the White Problem?
"Last year he confronted former Labor senator Sam Dastyari in a Melbourne pub and called the Iran-born politician a "terrorist" and a "monkey"".
Oh no, mean words! If this incident occurred, why wasn't that person charged with slander?
|The Aztecs, an ethnic group predisposed to commit crime due to its culture|
|The Nazis, an ethnic group predisposed to commit crime due to its culture|
In June 2010, through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Sunday Telegraph obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2]
The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black.
Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.
Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people.
Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob, and snatching property. Black males accounted for 29 percent of the male victims of gun crime and 24 percent of the male victims of knife crime.
On sex offences, black men made up 32 per cent of male suspects. Similar statistics were recorded for females. On knife crime, 45 percent of suspected female perpetrators were black; for gun crime, 58 percent; and for robberies, 52 percent.
Operation Trident was set up in March 1998 by the Metropolitan Police to investigate gun crime in London's black community after black-on-black shootings in Lambeth and Brent.
Between April 2005 and January 2006, figures from the Metropolitan Police Service showed that black people accounted for 46 percent of car-crime arrests generated by automatic number plate recognition cameras.
It turns out that certain ethnic groups have always been associated with violence. Gotta say, I thought that it was commonsense that the Amish were safer to be around than Shaka's Zulu tribes, but what do I know?
Here's a radical idea - maybe people from violent cultures currently engaged in decades of violence are violent because the culture they are in is violent, and simply pushing them from one country to another doesn't erase that background of violence.
Feminists constantly say "teach men not to rape!" but then look at men from the Congo - an ACTUAL rape culture, where rape is normal and moral as a weapon against your enemies - and refuse to use that same standard.
Maybe they should be saying that people from such countries need to be taught not to be violent - to Australian police, for example? Just an idea? Too out there?
No, I am not saying that the amount of melanin in your skin determines your behaviour. I am saying not all cultures are the same and some are measurably more violent, and it was only recently that the Police decided that it is politically incorrect to even acknowledge it.
"All these youth are part of our society, so we have to deal with them as a collective"
Far Left types are what is known as "collectivists". They do not see humans as individuals.
"Right-wing activists criticised as un-Australian"
Were they Australian or not? "Un-Australian" is an emotive term which sounds like it means something - but means nothing.
"I am disappointed and shocked to hear that a group of people would deliberately provoke a group of African youth"
I wonder if the police were apologising as they were being bashed? "We are so sorry our faces are bruising your knuckles? We hope our livers don't hurt your toes as you kick them?"
""We know that the actions of the very far right do not represent the views of Victorians."
They seem to be moving further and further right as this story progresses. But if they don't represent the views of Victorians, what were they? Aliens? Demons?
Or maybe they were people from Victoria, i.e. Victorians? Wow! Shocking, huh!
"Abeselom Nega said the activists' actions had no place in modern Victoria. "
The activists - who were peacefully protesting.
As opposed to those who behaved violently - which he has no problem with!
"The last thing we want is people who want to divide us along races "
If Nega acquires self-awareness, will his brain explode?
"He said he is concerned that the media's reporting on youth crime in Melbourne was fuelling racist attitudes."
So he had no problem with the people committing crime - just the reporting on that crime?
""I just kind of told him 'it's ok mate, I'll pay you with card' … I had to reassure him, more than any passenger would have to do," he said."
Oh no, a driver was worried about not being paid. Probably because of bad previous experiences. So the driver is not allowed to experience fear, because that is racist? It's funny that I constantly see the ABC telling women to be afraid of men because bad men have hurt women!
Here's a novel concept - STOP CRIMINALISING EMOTIONS.
If the driver was afraid, dealing with someone from the group that hurt him before in a civil manner will help abate that fear. Thus, good experiences overcome bad. But it's hardly unreasonable for a driver to want to be paid, and since drivers get robbed (and worse!), they have to be more fearful than the general population anyway.
FEAR IS NOT A PHOBIA IF IT HAS A RATIONAL BASIS.
"He said another friend from an African migrant background had experienced racial profiling while he was crossing the street to do some grocery shopping.
"A lady who was inside her car saw him crossing the road, she told her child to run back into the car, she locked the car, scared that he was going to attack them," Mr Muse said."
Yep, and I've had women react that way to me if I haven't shaved regularly. People will judge you if you look a bit rough. So what?
"He said a second friend who enjoys jogging at night now avoids wearing a hoodie to keep warm in winter because of the reactions of some people on the footpath."
Yes, people assume hoodies will commit crime, because they often do.
If you see someone with their face covered up, running up to you at night, you better be prepared to fight for your life.
Or if you work for the ABC, you just get your chauffeur to drive you to your gated suburb, I guess.
Shocking moment a hoodie-wearing youth throws a lit firework into a 'random' car on a London street
"The teen suspect, who was last seen wearing a gray hoodie..."
|Criminals often wear hoodies, as they are effective at countering surveillance.|