Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party's Prime Minister of Australia from 2007-2010, writes in the Australian Financial Review:
Our National Demons Are Being Purged
What national demons?
The last history of Australia I read emphasized that the central development in Australian history was getting Saturday mornings off from work so the working man could knock back a few on both Saturday and Friday evenings. Australia has the least demon-plagued history of any country on earth.
Its success is testimony to the success of the British model.
Oh, of course, it's the horrors of the old policy that prevented the rich mineowners and landowners from importing millions of Asian coolies to work for subsistence wages.
Posts
59 comments:
Oh, of course, it's the horrors of the old White Australia policy that prevented the rich mineowners and landowners from importing millions of Asian coolies to work for subsistence wages.
The immigrants to Australia today aren't being brought in to work in the mines or the farms. Which means the economic class-based explanation for immigration is incorrect. The Culture of Critique explanation for immigration is correct.
Australia has gone full multicultural, you never go full multicultural.
White Australia Policy: "racist."
Post-White Australia Policy: you get to listen to the "victims" bitch about it forever and ever.
What's really the point of getting rid of a supposedly racist policy if the alleged victims will never forgive you for having had the policy?
"What's really the point of getting rid of a supposedly racist policy if the alleged victims will never forgive you for having had the policy?"
If you're going to be accused of racism no matter what you do, may as well enjoy the benefits of racism.
Don't forget the stolen generations Aboriginal stuff...
Steve, surely an HBD believer such as you thinks that immigration policy should be based on merit, rather than race? In that case, a "whites only" immigration policy is wrong, since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?
To be true to your principles, you should support immigration policies based on merit (such as the points-based system in Canada)?
Australia, land of the US$16/hr minimum wage and 5.4% unemployment rate (in the US its US$7.25/hr and 7.8%). This is of course impossible in the world economists think we live in. Its taboo for economists to even question the economic wisdom that minimum wage laws are always bad.
I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage literature for a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of friends. People that I had known for many years, for instance, some of the ones I met at my first job at the University of Chicago, became very angry or disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work we were being traitors to the cause of economics as a whole."
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3190
surely an HBD believer such as you thinks that immigration policy should be based on merit, rather than race? In that case, a "whites only" immigration policy is wrong, since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?
It would be a piss poor believer in HBD who thought that "merit" was interchangeable with "IQ".
"...surely an HBD believer such as you thinks that immigration policy should be based on merit, rather than race?"
Please tell us more about why you think this makes sense.
Again, what is an immigration policy for?
Anonymous said...In that case, a "whites only" immigration policy is wrong, since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?
What is the likelihood that "w"hites will be discriminated against by the very "A"sians they welcome into their country?
"Anonymous said...
Steve, surely an HBD believer such as you thinks that immigration policy should be based on merit, rather than race? In that case, a "whites only" immigration policy is wrong, since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?
To be true to your principles, you should support immigration policies based on merit (such as the points-based system in Canada)?"
I'm sure your wife could find a better mate than you. She should dump you and get him. I'm sure your children could find a better father than you. They should disown you and put themselves up for adoption.
I'm disappointed. After looking at the headline, I expected baby-eating Dingos to get a honorable mention, at least.
"Anonymous said...
It would be a piss poor believer in HBD who thought that "merit" was interchangeable with "IQ"."
And it's a stupid one who thinks that "merit" or IQ should substitute for ethnic and national loyalty.
If you're going to be accused of racism no matter what you do, may as well enjoy the benefits of racism.
You should be the POTUS Heartiste!!
Steve, surely an HBD believer such as you thinks that immigration policy should be based on merit, rather than race? In that case, a "whites only" immigration policy is wrong, since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?
Merit is defined as the basis for determining what one deserves. Why should what one deserves be based on his IQ? What about the concept of property, which says that the people of a country deserve to keep what they have produced? Why isn't that the proper determinant of what one deserves?
To be true to your principles, you should support immigration policies based on merit (such as the points-based system in Canada)?
If my IQ is higher than yours, to be true to your principles you would have to invite me to live in your house, drink your beer, and sleep with your wife. Are you true to your principles, or are you a pedestrian particularist?
''since high IQ Asians are surely more worthy immigrants than lower IQ whites?''
If by lower IQ whites you mean Caucasians from the Muslim Middle East, then you have a good point.
Australia has the strongest of blue collar traditions, but it's leadership is becoming committed to multiculturalism.
Take Kevin Rudd. His daughter is married to a man from Hong Kong and she just popped out a kid.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/jessica-rudd-gives-birth-to-daughter-kevin-rudd-and-therese-delighted/
rudd? now there's a has been if there ever was one.
Well they did steal an entire continent.
Australia has multiple minimum wages that are lower than the oft-referenced one, including provision for paying mostly in room and board. Easy to get to 5% unemployment when employers don't necessarily have to pay $20+ per employee-hour to hire.
How saddening it is to witness the Diggers digging themselves into multiculturalism's bottomless pit. But then our rulers here, and throughout what remains of the West, have also been assiduously excavating our own plot in that same civilizational cemetery - and those to whom we are yielding are bound to desecrate every last headstone in it.
I think the Aussie elites are being subtle and pragmatic here.
Rudd is well aware of the merits of the English model. He is also aware that Australia's super power ally, which helped defend Australia from the Japanese in World War II, and recently agreed to station some tripwire troops near Darwin, to help defend Australia from China, is increasingly multi-racial and multi-cultural. No nation with an explicit whites-only immigration policy could hope to remain allied with the United States.
So the White Australia policy has been tossed on the ash heap of history, and Aussie elites engage in a little public self-flagellation. Meanwhile, according the CIA World Factbook, post-white Australia remains... 92% white, 7% Asian, 1% aboriginal. So, the de jure White Australia policy seems to have been replaced by a de facto one.
"No nation with an explicit whites-only immigration policy could hope to remain allied with the United States."
In contrast to Japan or Israel?
Australia has been by our side through every war we have fought, including Vietnam and Afghanistan. Israel and Japan have not. Yet we will let those two get away with something we won't let Australia get away with.
So it's fine having a racist immigration policy, so long as that immigration policy doesn't favor non-Jewish whites.
The irony of course is that Rudd belongs to the Labor Party, which introduced and supported the White Australia Policy. In other words Labour (as it was spelt then) was indeed the party of the working man. Now it's the party of 'chardonnay socialists' such as Rudd.
Matthew,
"In contrast to Japan or Israel?"
Neither has a whites-only immigration policy. Japan does have what may be the most racially discriminatory immigration policy of any country, and it does get lectured to (though not on racial grounds) about how it needs to open itself up to immigration.
"Australia has been by our side through every war we have fought, including Vietnam and Afghanistan."
Every extended one in the last century or so, that's true. And it has done so for the same reason it is publicly lamenting its White Australia policy now: to insure we'd have its back if and when the need arises.
"Israel and Japan have not."
Well, to be fair: Israel would have been happy to join us in the Gulf War, but we asked them to hold their fire, so as not to split the Arab coalition. And during our wars in Korea and Vietnam, Israel sort of had its hands full with its own wars. Including Israeli troops in our recent forays into Muslim nation-building would have been problematic.
As for Japan, the constitution we, shall we say, helped them draft after World War II put strict limits on the use of their armed forces. Nevertheless, they made significant financial contributions to the Gulf War effort, and sent some support troops to Iraq the second time around.
Dave,
You truly miss the point. My only relevant point was that both Israel and Japan benefit from America's military protection while having immigration policies that are explicitly racist. (And, for the record, I'm happy for both countries. I just think we should be able to do it, too.)
So either Australia could get by with a White Australia Policy, or else America would be holding Australia to a standard it it won't hold non-white allies to.
I suspect the real reason for Australia's embrace of a Non-White Australia Policy is that, well, that's what the Left wants for every white country.
"And it has done so for the same reason it is publicly lamenting its White Australia policy now: to insure we'd have its back if and when the need arises."
If there is a time when a US government can get away with abandoning Australia in a time of invasion, I suspect that time is yet very, very far off. Furthermore, it makes no sense to protect yourself from a hypothetical future invasion by allowing a real invasion today.
No. The Left wants to elect a new people. Global capitalism wants cheap labor. That's why Australia has changed its tune.
I think its this thing with the Aborigines. Now they think importing Asians somehow compensates for the supression of the indigenous. SOmething contorted like that.
Are all western politicians crybabies nowadays?
Looking at the demographics and immigration patterns in Australia, I was surprised at how low down the list Indonesians are. Given that they are right next door and have the world's fourth-largest population, I was under the false assumption that they are Australia's Mexicans.
In other words Labour (as it was spelt then) was indeed...
You guys adopted American spellings?Nooooooooooooooooo!
Cennbeorc
Guys like Kevin Rudd are a dime a dozen. He is your standard issue Anglosphere Boomer progressive. Isn't it just super fantastic to have them as our wise elders and to have the torch passed to us by such great men?
Apparently they've spelt it Labor since 1912, despite otherwise writinglabour.
De facto, Canada has not had a points-based immigration system for decades. Please stop repeating this falsehood. Only about 15% of Canadian immigrants are chosen. The rest are self-selected, through "family reunification," students and "temporary workers" that never left or as "refugees."
"Australia has gone full multicultural, you never go full multicultural."
lol.
they've gone full potato. you never go full potato.
" My only relevant point was that both Israel and Japan benefit from America's military protection while having immigration policies that are explicitly racist."
the US is actively defending the south korean border, spending billions per year on a "hot" military presence there, with actual occassional exchanges or artillery and missile fire between north korea and south korea. while south korea maintains what is probably the single most racist, ethnocentrically insular political policy on earth. they go well beyond israel or japan.
meanwhile, the US had no military involvement at all in south africa, but tolerated no policies of the apartheid government and embargoed them.
it should be obvious to everybody what the goals are here. europeans are no longer welcome to enact racially aware political policy. all other groups are.
Well they did steal an entire continent.
Did the aborigines have a deed on file somewhere?
Did the American Indians have a deed to the Americas?
Does the United States have a deed to the 50 states?
Rudd is funny. I think he doesn't realize that while Australia was a key player when it was willing to send troops abroad in WW I, WWII, and to a lesser extent Vietnam, it doesn't have anything to trade for influence now. In 1941, Churchill needed Australia to save Egypt from the Germans. In 2013, Cameron cares less about Australia than about Luxemburg.
"A whites-only immigration policy is wrong. Should be based on merit. High-I.Q. Asians better then low I.Q. whites. Look at Canada as an example". (I'm paraphrasing a bit here).
So many thoughts & replies.....
First Canada's immigration policy is a total diaster and has ruined what was once a highly cohesive and peaceful society.
But your real mistake here is not to consider issues like social and cultural realities. Who fits in better? What immigration policy produces the most social harmony? What policy produces the least? What policy will cause or promote racial tensions? Which policy will minimize it?
Now let me give you a hypothetical exmaple. Take the Canadian province of Quebec. It is 80% of French ethnic ancestry.
What would be better for Quebec?
Choice A) 1,000,000 Chinese immigrants with an average I.Q. of 110?
Choice B) 1,000,000 French immigrants with an I.Q. of 100?
What group is going to fit in better? What group is going to cause the least cultural friction? What group will cause the most?
What group is an investment in the genetic future of the majority community in Quebec? Which group will most exacerbate racial problems and hostilities? Which group will least do so?
And finally when you come right down to it, which group do most people in Quebec prefer to have as their new neighbours?
In the end sir, human beings are more then simply I.Q. digits. Culture, community and commonality matter a great deal.
"A whites only immigartion policy is wrong. High I.Q. Asians betetr then low I.Q. whites".
Except for Israel of course. They would never choose smarter Asians over less intelligent Jews.
Australia would do much better to acquire nuclear weapons as a safeguard for its future and security then rely on an uncertain alliance with the USA. The USA is a declining power and its alliance with Australia is hardly critical to its interests. In a pinch, the USA could throw Australia under the bus and still remain. Australia realized in 1941 it could not rely on Britain to protect it when it came down to the crunch. And its prime minister publicly said so, to Churcill's fury. Australia should NOW realize it has to ultimately look to its own self to safeguard its survival. With its vast areas of open and empty land, Australia could easily establish a land based nuclear weapons system. Or it could use submarines. It is ludicrous to assume one base with 2,500 U.S. troops is going to protect a continent of about 3,000,000 square miles in a tough and dangerous part of the world.
A country that was settled by that wonderful English system of scouring the poor or unfortunate from the homeland and sending them as prisoners to a remote penal colony. Who wouldn't want to be identified with such a successful method of settlement?
The radical "progressive" left has now re-adopted 19th century religious rhetoric? That was fast...
I have to at this point say/reiterate, that John Derbyshire's "address to the VDARE webinar"(?) basically explains the relevant forces at work in Oz there, albeit indirectly.
If you're going to be accused of racism no matter what you do, may as well enjoy the benefits of racism.
Well put. If you can't beat 'em join 'em (I'm paraphrasing Von Clausewitz there).
You see this throughout gov't, military, political parties, and corporate U.S.A., plus the entertainment/infotainment industries. Ivy League admissions are a special case...
Australia has the least demon-plagued history of any country on earth.
My vote is for Iceland. No civil war in its thousand-year history. Homogenous; no ethnoreligious strife. No foreign wars AFAIK. No military-industrial complex. No mass immigration -- heck, no immigration, period. No conflicts with indigenous peoples. Scenically beautiful, if cold. Energy independent thanks to domestic thermal sources. Low Gini coefficient. Gorgeous women.
I wonder what Mr Rudd would make of Frank Salter's recent articles in Quadrant?
"Media coverage
The national question figures large in the Australian media. From September 2011 until August 2012 I collected 215 articles and programs on national themes, mainly from the Sydney Morning Herald (henceforth the Herald) but also from the Australian and selected television and radio programs. The Herald is part of the Fairfax media group, which occupies a position analogous to the New York Times in America, from which it often reprints articles. The Australian is the flagship of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Australia, which owns most of the country’s print media. The newspaper reflects the Murdoch formula of a campaigning approach to journalism with a neoconservative flavour.
The collected media reports discussed Aborigines, refugees, white racism, the benefits of multiculturalism and diversity, criticism of white Australia, national identity (including Anzac Day), foreign investment, international relations, and overseas ethnic conflict.
...
The general absence of biosocial perspectives was evident in the media’s lack of interest in signs of ethnic hierarchy. Pecking orders interest zoologists. They are ubiquitous in vertebrate species. Ethnic hierarchy is relevant to the national question because a fundamental legitimation for government is that it protects the people from conquest. In the Western tradition that is the first duty of sovereigns. A king might have exploited his subjects, but in defence of the realm ruler and ruled shared an interest in resisting external domination. In anthropological theories of the state, hunter-gatherers gave up their egalitarian social structure in the interests of group defence. Still today, in liberal doctrine, liberty from external subjugation takes precedence over citizens’ individual civil liberties within the state.[10] (Libertarians are right to see war as a threat to their values.) This made good evolutionary sense because conquered populations lose resources including territory and, ultimately, reproductive fitness.
Yet the Australian elite media show little interest in ethnic hierarchy, beyond alleging white racism. If provoked into commenting on the subject, many would reply that multiculturalism has done away with the only ethnic hierarchy Australia has known, which saw Anglo-Celtic Australia firmly on top and Aborigines and non-English-speaking immigrants firmly underneath. This thesis makes sense for most of Australian history since 1788 but not in recent decades. Anglo-Celtic Australians are being rapidly displaced by mass Third World immigration that they were never asked to approve, are excluded from multicultural forums, and are the prime targets of political correctness, including a growingly coercive legal apparatus.
Anglo-Celtic Australia’s subordinate status is also indicated by the pattern of media reporting and commentary on ethnic affairs. An element of that pattern is the emphasis on white racism. Journalists are alert for discrimination when practised by Anglo Australians but are somnolent in the case of minorities. This is odd from the biosocial perspective because ethnocentrism is a species characteristic, a universal potentiality. Ethnic networking and other forms of solidarity are usually most intense in minorities.[11]
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/10/the-war-against-human-nature-iii-race-and-the-nation-in-the-media
Salter's final article concludes:
"Anglo Australians are a subaltern ethnicity. They are second-class citizens, the only ethnic group subjected to gratuitous defamation and hostile interrogation in the quality media, academia and race-relations bureaucracy. The national question is obscured in political culture by fallout from a continuing culture war against the historical Australian nation. Many of the premises on which ethnic policy have been based since the 1970s are simply false, from the beneficence of diversity to the white monopoly of racism and the irrelevance of race. The elite media and strong elements of the professoriate assert that racial hatred in Australia is the product of Anglo-Celtic society. But in the same media and even in the Commission for Race Discrimination most ethnic disparagement is aimed at “homogenised white” people.
What would correct the situation? At the minimum, analysis based on human nature needs to be injected into the study of the national question. Behavioural biology is necessary but not sufficient for that project. The conservative intellectual heritage also needs to be revived and updated for modern times to breathe compassion and affection for Anglo Australia into ethnic studies. The philosophy of Edmund Burke regarding homeland and national cohesion—that a healthy society resembles a family with obligations to generations past, present and future—is supported and signified by the discovery of ethnic kinship, the benefits of relative homogeneity and the issues raised by the political arena’s expansion to the global stage.
Such reveries appear hopelessly academic when confronted with the intolerance of Left intellectuals and an immigration industry that exercises undue influence on the Australian state. Initiatives by isolated academics will be inadequate to counter entrenched politicisation. Dissent exists but not many have the tenure or the stomach to suffer isolation and contumely. Lone heroics are simply not a viable strategy for young scholars seeking to build careers studying the national question without teaching lies. It will be necessary to organise.
One or more Anglo councils are needed, non-governmental organisations along the lines of other ethnic councils but oriented more towards promoting the scientific study of ethnicity and nationalism. The council should also advocate for Anglo Australians, broadly defined. An Anglo council, and ultimately a federation of Anglo councils, would defend its constituents’ ethnic interests—against defamation, exploitation and demographic swamping. It would demand full representation in multicultural bodies and seek consultative access to government. It would lobby for schoolchildren to be taught the true history of the nation. It would affirm its attachment to the land of Australia. And it would insist that if any people is to be recognised in the Constitution, pride of place should be given to that which founded the nation and provided its infrastructure, political and legal systems, culture and language. Representing the core national identity and the majority of Australians, such a council should adopt a conciliatory role to smooth ethnic relations but in a manner compatible with defending its constituents’ rights and legitimate interests. The effect would be to democratise multiculturalism and the immigration industry by giving the majority of Australians representation in those spheres for the first time.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/11/the-war-against-human-nature-iii
"Well they did steal an entire continent."
The white men who encroached on the natives were "thieves." The non-white men encroaching on the white men are "immigrants."
White men are either immigrants or thieves, depending on the context; depending on whatever lie Lefties are trying to defend. White men are never the natives, and never deserve special regard for having arrived somewhere first.
Because American Indians were here before white men means they deserve special consideration. My ancestors getting here in 1607 and 1620 and 1638 and building everything from scratch that made this land worth coming doesn't buy me squat.
"Well they did steal an entire continent".
Australia is about 3,000,000 square miles in size. It is thought there were about 200,000 Aborigines when Europeans first arrived. As a comparison imagine Mexico, which is about four times smaller, with a population of 50,000 people. (Actual Mexican population 115,000,000.) Such a very low population could never have occupied such a vast area of spatiality. Even today with about 23,000,000 people, there are enormous areas of Australia that have virtually no population at all. As a comparison the Aborigine population would equal to about 6,000 people living on the island of Great Britain. There are towns in Scotland bigger then that. Britain would be regarded as an almost uninhabited island. Those 6,000 people and their descendents could be said to have the bragging rights to "being there first", but they hardly "owned" or "occupied" the soil in any meaningful demographic sense of the term.
BTW, Kevin Rudd sat for a Lunch with the FT interview a couple of years ago. Here he talks about his ancestor who was sent to Australia as a convict:
I turn to the subject of Thomas Rudd, his ancestor, who was transported from London to Australia in 1789. “My forbear was unremarkable,” he says, a strange opening to a most remarkable tale. “He was a 17-year-old London dustman accused by a scullery maid of having nicked a pair of shoes from the back step of a house.” Thomas missed passage on the First Fleet, where conditions were relatively humane. Instead, he made the Second Fleet (“the Death Fleet”), which had been privatised to save money. The operators were paid for each person shipped, rather than for each one they delivered alive. “One of the bizarre tender conditions was that the successful tenderer could retain, for subsequent resale, any leftover victuals,” Rudd says. “Your FT readers will appreciate this.” The operator, a west African slaver, duly cut back rations. Around one-quarter of the convicts, shackled below deck, starved to death.
“My bloke survived,” Rudd continues, recounting how Thomas, after serving his seven-year sentence, worked his passage back to England via China. He was convicted again, this time for stealing a bag of sugar. “So far as I know this was the only doubly convicted, doubly transported Australian convict.” Released a second time, Thomas was granted land outside Sydney as part of a more liberal emancipation policy. He died at 70, a respectable citizen and an embodiment of the sway that public policy holds over people’s lives, first through shipping him to Australia for a minor crime and eventually helping his rehabilitation by giving him the means to make an income.
i don't think canada has a "smart or useful immigrants only" policy anymore. that probably ended a while ago.
canada is in full blown cultural marxist mode. they pretty much let any random person in as long as they meet one of the following stringent criteria:
1) not white
2) not christian. deeply religious muslims and hindus preferred
3) refuse to learn english
4) are over 60 and too old to work or contribute in any meaningful way
5) have rich relatives back home who can bid up home prices in canada to over 1 million dollars
6) can't drive to save their life (will automatically be provided driver's license upon arrival however)
7) have at least 5 kids they can't provide for (canadian government will take care of that)
i'm only joking a little.
The second I mean the second a Chinese military attack on Australia begins we will ship them untraceable nuclear and chemical weapons. The Aussies letting one loose over shanghai would be a dream come true for the Joint Chiefs.
Noah172 said;
(ICELAND)
..no conflicts with indigenous peoples...
There were none. So there was nobody to have a conflict with.
This raises a question. If there had been no scattered bands of hunter-gatherers in America when the Pilgrims arrived, would whites then be regarded as the indisputable, natural owners of the land? Nobody says the Icelandics are "immigrants" or that Iceland is "a nation of immigrants" although really if you think about it, they too arrived from abroad - Scandinavia. Or does the fact that they arrived about 800 years before the pilgrims did make the difference? The white Icelandics have lived in Iceland for several centuries LONGER then the "native" Maoris have lived in New Zealand. Does the passage of time do the trick? In the year 2800 will enough time have passed from the early 1600's that that cornball phrase we are all immigrants will be seen as a ludicrous statement? Does Iceland just fly under the radar? Why aren't the U.N. globalists filling the place up with Somalis?
""A whites-only immigration policy is wrong. Should be based on merit. High-I.Q. Asians better then low I.Q. whites. Look at Canada as an example". (I'm paraphrasing a bit here)."
Social cohesion is equally as important as IQ - as the Israelis know full well. Their cheerleaders in the US MSM know it full well also and only promote ethnic diversity for everyone else *because* they know ethnic homogeneity is best. Persuading everyone else of the opposite thus gives them a competitive edge.
1) How do the indigenous Australians feel about the Euro-Australian establishment importing still more races to exploit them? Are they cool with Muslim "captains of industry"? Will the aborigines be happier cleaning Chinese and Hindu occupied mansions than they are Wasp and Jewish ones?
2) The failure of the people of Europe to give themselves an identity beyond their current domicile or a foreign religion has become evident. Australian, as a term, is meaningless - it's the "Chinese" appended to "Chinese-Australian" that's the real identifier.
Like the vilified Germans once said, back when they were people, "If a cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them cookies."
For Anonymous who wonders if length of time in residence does the trick for "owning" the land, the answer's no. Bantu speaking tribesmen and Europeans showed up at the southern tip of Africa roughly contemporaneously, yet for the first group it's their "motherland", while the second fading bunch are "colonists".
A million blogs aren't going to stop the eradication of the Europeans...errr "whites", no matter their insights, no matter their pithy comments. Cut off from capital, unable to master the technology you brought into the world, and sputtering around as individuals in the face of cohesive groups, you've entered exponential drop-off rate territory now.
You blew your chance. Now it's sins of the fathers time.
Can't wait till Australia opens all combat roles to women in line with America. ****, I ****en hate politicians. In other new, Krudd is an embarrassment to Australia and Gillard has started wearing glasses to look similar to Clinton. WTF is the world coming to?
Canada is a horrible example. The vast majority are family-reunification, refugees, or illegals (student visa scams).
the austr(al)ian school of economics: depleting all your renewable resources rapidly, exporting raw materials to strategic enemies without processing them into intermediate or finished goods, and massively increasing your population with ethnic aliens despite being unsure if there will even be enough drinking water
vyide [url=http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com]louis vuitton handbags[/url] ngmzjf http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com mjavc [url=http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com]cheap louis vuitton[/url] dmmvde http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com vltgq [url=http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton handbags[/url] glfqxs http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com fhec [url=http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] emafal http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com oaygc [url=http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton outlet[/url] azhpcw http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com vdqav [url=http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] djxtxi http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com xbqq
Post a Comment