Frank wrote on Jun 17^th, 2025 at 5:56pm:

John Derbyshire wrote, “Yes, talk about the talk is all over.” Under the headline, “The Talk: NonBlack Version,” he said, “There is a talk that non Black Americans have with their children, too. My own children, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.” He then listed a series of clearly racist and undocumented comments. Among them: The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual Black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a non-Black citizen.


That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety. In consideration of personal safety, Derby-shire advises: Avoid concentrations of Blacks not all known to you personally; Stay out of heavily Black neighbor-hoods; If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with Blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot); Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of Blacks; If you are at some public event at which the number of Blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible; Do not settle in a district or municipality run by Black politicians; Before voting for a Black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a White; Do not act the Good Samaritan to Blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the high-way and if accosted by a strange Black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with Black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restrict-ed only to Black convicted murderers or to Black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for Black and White Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences. Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

These differences are magnified by the hostility many Blacks feel toward Whites. Thus, while Black-on-Black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is White-on-White behavior, average Black-on-White behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

A small cohort of Blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to Whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of Blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that Whites have it coming.

The mean intelligence of Blacks is much lower than for Whites. The least intelligent ten percent of Whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of Blacks have IQs that low. Only one Black in six is more intelligent than the average White; five Whites out of six are more intelligent than the average Black…“Life is an IQ test.” There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of Blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the Black stranger will be less intelligent than the White. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a White than by a Black.

Derbyshire ended his article by saying, “You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are White or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.”
https://thewestsidegazette.com/racist-talk-with-white-children/?amp=1

According to Soren, the noted legal expert, Albanese should have ignored the High Court's ruling on unlawful detention and kept Asylum Seekers incarcerated indefinitely without legal course being applied.  Soren, the greatest Legal Mind we have in Australia feels that the powers defined by the Constitution can be exceeded, despite what the High Court has decreed.  We should immediately elect Soren the Dictator of Australia, he'd clear up all our legal problems without a qualm, no matter what the High Court judges.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

When history is written as it ought to be written’, said the great Trinidadian Marxist CLR James, ‘it is the moderation and long patience of the masses at which men will wonder, not their ferocity’. On no historical calamity is this truer than the rape-gang scandal. When future scribes look back at this violent tear in the British social fabric, it is the forbearance of the public they will marvel over. It will dazzle them.

These vile prejudices were the fuel of this scandal

The spectre of public volatility has stalked this scandal from the start. The establishment’s irrational dread of the feral masses shaped its yellow-bellied decision-making. From the local officials who ‘shied away’ from discussing the ethnicity of the rapists to the commentariat that barked ‘far right!’ at any pleb who dared to utter the word ‘Muslim’, the great fear was always that truth might unleash savagery. We mustn’t openly discuss this, they told themselves, because the rabble will rampage.

Even now, following the publication of Baroness Casey’s stinging report on the failures of officialdom, angst about the throng swirls through polite society. A reporter asked Casey if she was worried that her findings might lead to ‘civil unrest’. Such terror grips the Home Office too. An insider says officials are quaking at the prospect of ‘civil unrest’ following Casey’s finding that foreign nationals make up a ‘significant proportion’ of current rape-gang investigations.

What a brilliant if bitter-tasting insight into the anti-masses bigotry of the technocrats that rule over us. They hear that undocumented arrivals are potentially involved in some of the sickest crimes imaginable and their first thought is: ‘Oh no, how will the white working classes respond?’ They fear ‘the gammon’ more than the groomers. The imaginary violence of the ‘low-information’ public causes them more sleepless nights than the real violence of the gangs of rapists.

It’s been like this for years. In political circles, in academia, in the media, far more alarm was expressed over the untamed masses than the gangs themselves. All their pious handwringing over the ‘racialisation’ of child abuse and the stirring up of ‘moral panics’ and the dangers of ‘inflammatory’ coverage was designed to dampen what they see as the rough, unruly passions of the little people. As recently as January this year, Health Secretary Wes Streeting was warning that ‘coarse’ discussion of the rape gangs might incite mass violence.

Bury the truth to tame the throng – that, for years, was the rallying cry of the establishment. And when the truth could no longer be contained, they called for coolness, restraint, decorous language only. In short, say nothing that might rile up the brutish multitude. We too often overlook this classist bigotry that shaped this outrage and shapes it still. A ruthless lack of care for the poor white girls who were raped and an outsized fear of what poor white men might do upon discovering the truth – these vile prejudices were the fuel of this scandal.

The irony was dark. They fretted over a ‘moral panic’ while stirring up their own moral panic about the turbulent lower orders. They pontificated about the dangers of bigotry while peddling their own bigoted view of ordinary people as so dim-minded and given to violence that they cannot even be trusted with the truth about what was done to the girls in their communities. They posed as righteous while sacrificing the safety and dignity of the poorest, most vulnerable girls at the altar of ideology.

It was one of the greatest inversions of truth our nation has ever seen. The calm, concerned masses were defamed as a violent whirlwind of bigoted passion, while the irrational elites falsely depicted themselves as paragons of good sense and virtue. What this horror really reveals is the spite and unreason of some in the ruling class, and the patient yearning for truth of ordinary people. The great prejudice of our age – that the people who rule Britain are experts and the people they rule over are fools – has been shattered on the wheels of this scandal.

In response to that query about the possibility that her findings will whip up ‘civil unrest’, Baroness Casey said: ‘If good people don’t grip difficult issues, in my experience bad people do.’ Britain has plenty of good people. They’re the ones who have known the truth about these gangs for years and who with great, peaceful sufferance pushed for the truth to come out. This ‘long patience of the masses’, this perseverance for truth in the face of ceaseless insults, is a credit to our nation. The wisdom of the crowd – let’s value it more.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-establishment-was-more-afraid-of-the...

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 17^th, 2025 at 11:09pm:



Needless to say, you completely misunderstand the situation.  It turns on detainees, who are not owed protection, agreeing to their deportation. Those who do not agree CAN be detained indefinitely if their own country does not accept forced returns of their citizens.


https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2024-05-28-high-court-ruling-in-asf17-v-c...


Decision
The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commonwealth’s continued detention of ASF17 was lawful. 

Six justices (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ) delivered a joint judgment concluding that detention which is continuing because of a voluntary decision of the person detained cannot be characterised as penal or punitive.

In applying the test set out in NZYQ, the majority held that for removal to be practicable, there must first be a country to which the person can be removed, and their removal to that country must be permissible under the Migration Act. Section 197C of the Act does not permit the involuntary removal of a person for whom a “protection finding” has been made under the Act, to the country where they are at risk of harm. But for anyone else who does not already have an established protection finding, the question of whether or not they are owed protection obligations is irrelevant to the duty to remove them.10 The statutory consequence is that for a person such as ASF17, a fear of harm is insufficient to preclude removal, irrespective of whether that claim might be genuine or well-founded.

Once a removal country is identified, the question is then whether there are practically available steps which, if taken, can realistically be predicted to result in removal. Those steps may include administrative processes requiring a person’s cooperation. Those steps remain practically available even if a person refuses to take them.

The majority considered that the concept of a ‘good reason’ for refusing to cooperate, as expressed in the earlier case of Plaintiff M47, was directed to whether non-cooperation could be explained by incapacity by reason of, for example, any medical condition or mental illness. The critical consideration in that case was whether it was within the person’s power to cooperate.

It had been conceded at trial that ASF17’s cooperation with the process of obtaining a travel document was the only barrier to his removal to Iran. In circumstances in which ASF17 had the capacity to change his mind and obtain a travel document, but had chosen not to do so, the majority found that the constitutional limit on detention had not been exceeded.

Chinese and Indian immigrants in Australia are having more sons than daughters, raising alarm over gender-based abortions.

Sex is strongly skewed male among Australian babies born to migrants from cultures that historically prize men over women, Edith Cowan University researchers have discovered in a new study published in the Global Public Health journal.

Mothers born in Australia, Britain and New Zealand had children within the expected natural range of 105 boys for every 100 girls, the researchers found, but mothers born in China and India were far more likely to deliver boys, based on analysis of 2.1 million births in NSW and Western Australia between 1994 and 2015.

Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Frank wrote on Jul 6^th, 2025 at 10:16pm:


Oh, dearie, dearie, me, poor, poor, Soren, who's only contribution to society is to resort to ad huminem insults at the drop of a hat.  What a WOFTAM you are, Soren.  Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...