Milo banned from Australia

Australian democracy is dead. But hey, democracy is a giant con anyway.

From the Australian:

Far-right provocateur Milo Yian­nopoulos is set to be banned from entering Australia on character grounds in a move that will deny him the opportunity to grab headlines ahead of the upcoming federal election.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson accused the government of banning Mr Yiannopoulos for votes, and wants Immigration Minister David Coleman to reverse his department’s decision.

Bad Scott.

Aside from the slander of “far-right”, it is remarkable for a mainstream media organisation to be so honest about a news story in its opening paragraphs. Another Milo visit would indeed shake up the Australian federal election race. It would energise the conservative base, redpill many on the anti-whiteism of Islam and feminism, and highlight the terrorist political violence of the far-left and the communist Victorian government’s complicity with it.

Mr Yiannopoulos, who came to fame as a leading figure of the alt-right movement during the 2016 US presidential election, has been informed by the Department of Home Affairs that it intends to refuse him a visa.

The Department of Home Affairs said Mr Yiannopoulos would have 28 days to put his case. “Any application lodged with the department by visitors who may hold controversial views will be considered, balancing any risk they may pose with Australia’s well-established freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs,” he said.

The department has recently denied visas to controversial figures including conspiracy theorist David Icke.

I’m pretty sure Milo doesn’t deny the holocaust. Free speech is as dead as the dodo. But hey, add so-called “free speech” to the list of leftist cons.

Senator Hanson told The Australian she spoke to Mr Coleman this week, learning that the controversial alt-right figure was set to be denied entry.

“They have now sent him some questions, and how he answers those questions will determine how it goes,” she said.

“I am angry. I can’t see what Milo has done to be banned from Australia. The Left are pushing this. It’s all about the election, it’s all about votes.”

Pauline Hanson is dead right. This decision actually encourages violent extremist terrorist organisation Antifa to be more violent, as it demonstrates that if they cause enough havoc when a conservative tries to express themselves in public, next time they try, the Australian government won’t even let them into the country.

MSM articles on the resurgence of nationalist politics in the West are generally divided into two sections. In one section we are given the content, the relevant facts regarding the latest news on the subject. We are about to enter the second section, the context, where the writers and editors attempt to frame the latest news in light of recent history. The “context” they provide is always revealling.

Mr Yiannopoulos has been a diminishing figure in the global alt-right movement for some years now.

This is primarily because he stops short of openly backing ethnic nationalism based on white identity in European countries. Thus it is more accurate to describe him as belonging to the “alt-lite”, and as with Jordan Peterson, a perennial debate ensues over whether Milo acts as a gateway drug or a gatekeeper to ethnic nationalist ideas.

He visited Australia, including Parliament House, in 2017, with his events in Sydney and Melbourne prompting violent clashes between far-right and far-left activists.

The Australian government has banned someone whom, last time they visited Australia, was invited to the seat of government by an elected representative of the people. As stated earlier, his events did not prompt “violent clashes between far-right and far-left activists”. Far left terrorist group Antifa violently intimidated ordinary conservatives who simply wanted to hear somebody speak.

Victoria Police later charged Mr Yiannopoulos for the security costs at his event.

This is called communism.

Last June, PayPal suspended his account for sending a Jewish journalist $14.88, with “14” a white supremacist code for “protecting white children” and “88” being code for “Heil Hitler”. He also made headlines for sending violent messages to reporters.

The 14 refers to the 14 words, a completely uncontroversial statement of fact:

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

Given that Milo Yiannopoulos is a homosexual Jew who is married to a black guy, and whom as stated earlier stops short of explicitly advocating for white or European nationalism, who is regularly harassed by Dying Media journalists, and given Milo’s penchant for provocative stunts, it cannot be made any clearer regarding the 88:

That was a troll.

It was also revealed late last year that he was more than $2 million in debt, and owed money to Queensland events management group AE Media, who were organising a now-­cancelled tour with US right-wing commentator Anne Coulter.

AE Media was approached for comment yesterday.

Visa cancelled. Gets fined for speaking. Faces organised far left terrorist violence wherever you go. It’s a hefty price.

Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Dvir Abramovich, a campaigner against anti-Semitism, welcomed the potential ban on Mr Yianno­poulos.

“The Morrison government, once again, has taken the high moral road of saying no to hate speech and extremism, and has protected the most vulnerable in our society from incitement and vilification,” he said.

You have got to be kidding me. Could we not accuse the ADC of “anti-semitism”, “homophobia” and “racism” for their opposition to a homosexual Jew with a black husband?

What this clincher demonstrates, aside from the fact that The Oz is a globalist rag, is that those on the right who advocate using the left’s intersectional fetish against them are misguided. Being a homosexual Jew with a black husband, or a so-called “moderate” Muslim who opposes terrorism and the burka, or the fielding of Asian candidates by a political party whose leader once prophesied that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians” will not save you from the intolerant rage mobs of the far left.

No amount of virtue signalling will.

We need white men to represent white men. And believe me, we will get it.

Can we just have a crusade already?

Your forefathers were stewards of British lands for thousands of years so that in the current year, a foreign writer could bemoan a foreign home secretary’s attempt to strip a foreign jihadi bride of her citizenship.

From the Guardian:

“The legal and moral conundrums posed by the return (or not) of British jihadis following the collapse of the Islamic State “caliphate”has triggered renewed anxiety about the place of Muslim youth in western society. The home secretary, Sajid Javid’s populist bid to strip Shamima Begum of citizenship has heightened the pitch of an emotive debate.”

And that’s as far as I got.

Apparently, Sajid Javid is a “populist.” What a redneck. Do we white people have to reclaim our own pejorative terms or something?

I’d be more inclined to call him a banker.

I am sure there is pure gold in this article, but this opening paragraph and the preamble give us all we need, and it is all I am going to put myself through. Here’s the preamble:

“Radical thought can be positive and progressive, it doesn’t have to mean joining a death cult.”

We here at The XYZ have enjoyed great mirth at the way the far left have deliberately invented new words for Islam and the terror it spreads wherever it goes. The term “violent extremism” became the epitome of this Orwellian mass gaslighting, joining two adjectives with no connection to either Islam or terror to describe what Islamic terrorists do, and being conveniently vague a term that it could be turned against those who actually oppose Islamic terror.

Using the word “radical” in conjunction with Islam is also a way to deflect from the violence at the core of Islam, and present its violent footsoldiers as unrepresentative of the so-called “Religion of Peace”. Thus this preamble is an attempt to deflect from a deflection, further removing us from thinking and speaking directly about the Islamic Question.

Most importantly, the opening paragraph represents our fundamental problem:

We are being replaced.

In England, the ethnic replacement, the language codes and the so-called “affirmative action” have reached the point where the most senior opponent of the complete inundation of British culture with Islamic culture is a foreigner. Under the current system he is the only one allowed to, but even this won’t last. He is after all a “populist”.

The fact is, Ali Nobil Ahmad, Sajid Javid and Shamima Begum must all go back.

And remember the maxim:

White guys are nice. Until they’re not.