First we have "The world would be better off with fewer royal babies" by Darren Levin, on page 23 from Monday, August 5, 2019. In which he writes that he has three children but "it's not our fault, we had twins", but thats for him not for you. His advice to you is:
According to research from Sweden's Lund University, the greatest contribution you could make to the fight against climate change is to have one less child.He uses the recent announcement by Prince Harry that they will be only having two children as the hook.
If you consider that the average Brit emits nearly 10 times as much carbon as someone in India or Vietnam each year - and more than 100 times more than your average Ethiopian - can you imagine how much carbon a royal baby would spew into the atmosphere over the course of their privileged lifetime?This will be of interest soon.
Then we have the second article "We should take migrants from more nations" by Theo Theophanous, who was the state Member of Parliament for Thomastown, just down the road from me. Mr. Theophanous writes about his recent trip to Europe where he visited Italy and Greece.
We are reshaping the composition of Australia without any debate or planning.
Many people I spoke to in Europe told me how much they admired our policy of stopping the boats.
But what these supporters of our policies may not know is that alongside our tough policy of stopping a few hundred refugees coming by boat, there has been a massive official immigration program of almost 200,000 each year over the past decade that is changing the demography of Australia. And what most Australians don't know is that there has been an explosion in the number of people flying to Australia in visitor visas and then applying for refugee protection visas: up from 8547 in 2014-15 to a staggering 27,931 in 2017-18.
As a result, Australia has more than eight million overseas-born residents or about 30 per cent of it's population. The US has about 14 per cent, Germany 15 per cent, and other European countries have even less.He sounds quite concerned, he even sounds like he agrees with us. But thats just fluff.
I think we need a high migrant intake because we are still building Australia. Study after study has shown that it is good for our economy. And as long as people we admit are supportive of our democratic values and respect our laws, I am OK with that.
But as I have argued, we must diversify our intake. If we want to retain social cohesion, if we want a truly multicultural nation, we should not have a concentration of immigrants from two or three countries.
When we talk about White genocide this is what we are talking about. One article tells us Whites to have less children and the second tells us that we need more immigration. If Whites were encouraged and supported in having their own children then we would not need immigration to create a bigger economy. And encouraging people from poor countries to come to the West increases environmental issues. But each in their own way supports our destruction, at each turn they want less Whites and more foreigners.
I would also point out that many people inside and outside Australia think that Australia's immigration policy is the height of good policy. However what Mr. Theophanous writes is correct:
"We are reshaping the composition of Australia without any debate or planning."
It is all about ideology, not whats good for the country or it's people.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Game of Thrones and Female Leadership