Decent Australians calling for crackdown on Islamic-Leftist mass immigration

Da islamic-sympathising Leftist media have played down the filmed terror in Nice last week, instead spinning that some out-of control truck was driven by a disturbed man of French-Tunisian origin.

What crock!  It’s just more Marxist pro-Islamic propaganda!

Australia’s taxpayer-funded Leftist ABC national media chose network-wide to censor all reporting of this week’s rabid islamic axe attack on a Bavarian passenger train to Würzburg…as if it never happened.  Truth goes unreported by the ABC refugee protection racket:

Da Left relentlessly flogs Donald Trump’s right to run for the US presidency, and excuses Democratic Hilary Clinton for criminal conduct. To da Left, a criminal Leftie can do no wrong, like da CFMEU.

But like weakened ragheads ISIS in da Iraqi desert badlands resorting to desperation tactics, da weakened Left has lately frothed on a public Australian daring to publicise distain for Islamic terror.

Australian much-loved and respected media personality, Sonia Kruger, this week was interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson (setup on Channel Nine’s Today Extra programme) in which she responded naturally to questions about Muslim immigration following the Nice terror attack in France.

Sonia Kruger responded in solidarity with the French people,calling on civilized Australia to ban Muslim immigrants. Kruger responded to the loaded questions stating she would like to see the immigration of Muslims to Australia “stopped now … because I would like to feel safe…as a mother, I believe it’s vital in a democratic society to be able to discuss these issues without automatically being labelled racist”.

Most Australians would agree and empathise.

Kruger was responding on Monday morning to a column by Australia’s pro-Liberal Party columnist Andrew Bolt, who wrote in the News Corp press that jihadist terrorists had made France “Europe’s bloodiest battlefield” because “France let in the most Muslims”.  “We are fools not to change our own immigration policies to protect ourselves,” Bolt said.

Kruger said on air: “Personally I think Andrew Bolt has a point here that there is a correlation between the number of Muslims in a country and the number of terrorist attacks..I have a lot of friends who are Muslim who are peace-loving, who are beautiful people, but there are fanatics.”

She went on to compare France and Australia with Japan with its population 128 million, yet allowing in just 100,000 Muslims, and “you never hear of terrorist attacks in Japan”, Kruger explained.

“Personally I would like to see it [the immigration of Muslims] stopped now for Australia because I would like to feel safe as all of our citizens do when they go out to celebrate Australia Day and I’d like to see freedom of speech…I would venture that if you spoke to the parents of those children killed in Nice, they would be of the same opinion.”

Islamic Terror Massacre in Nice 2016

Watch Channel Nine’s ‘gotcha interview’ entrapping Sonia Kruger:


Typical intolerant censoring Left has gone frothing feral over Kruger’s rational honesty.  Kruger has responded to an avalanche of criticism after her call to ban Muslim migrants from Australia by saying she should be free to speak her mind without being labelled “a racist”.

Kruger released a statement through Twitter on Monday afternoon defending her comments on the Today Show.  “Following the atrocities of last week in Nice where 10 children lost their lives, as a mother, I believe it’s vital in a democratic society to be able to discuss these issues without being labelled racist,” she said.

When asked by Lisa Wilkinson to clarify whether she was saying she would like Australian borders closed to Muslims at this point, Ms Kruger outright said: “Yes I would. For the safety of our citizens here, I think it’s important.”

What Kruger was responding to was journalist Andrew Bolt’s recent newspaper column since the Nice terror attack, reflecting upon the contributory causes behind the Islamic terror attacks specific to France.


What Andrew Bolt wrote: 

“And if our politicians will not speak frankly and protect us from Islam, watch out for a civil war. A frightened public will not put up with this for much longer and will defend themselves.

Here, yes, that ugly day has not dawned and let us pray it never does. But in France, God knows how soon non-Muslim vigilantes will themselves take up arms.

Who could blame them, after the murderous attacks by Islamists on a Jewish kindergarten, on a satirical magazine that mocked Islam, on a ­kosher supermarket, on a ­policeman and his wife at home and, last year, on Paris in a full-on military assault that killed 130 people.

And now at least another 80 people dead in Nice, killed by a Tunisian-born Frenchman.

Even before the Nice attack, Patrick Calvar, chief of France’s Directorate General of Internal Security, warned that “extremism is growing everywhere” and “we are on the brink of civil war”.

Calvar was talking then of a surge of attacks by Muslim men on non-Muslim women — like the 1200 attacks on German women on New Year’s Eve — but added that tensions were so high that it could just take one more major Islamist terror attack to lead to a huge Right-wing backlash.

That attack has now ­occurred.”

Aussie Reader Comments:


Angus Black of Cygnet (Wed 20 Jul 2016):

“Actually, history shows that, traditionally, the Left call on force as their first response.  Perhaps that is because there is no coherent reason underlying the range of conflicting the positions they take.”


MattR of Melbourne, Wed 20 Jul 2016:

“As a conservative, i want conservative content from the media organisations i CHOOSE to spend my money on or the SERVICES i consume.

So let’s have Newscorp sack every leftist. They can work for leftist media like Fairfax, Guardian, Conversation, etc. Let’s also cut funding to the ABC & SBS by 100%, so their leftists can pursue their leftist dreams at Fairfax, 7, 9, 10, etc & we will see how popular their leftism is, in “the marketplace of ideas”.

Let’s use the false advertising laws to force all media businesses to advertise whether they support the ideology of inter-national socialism, national socialism, libertarianism or conservatism.”


TT, Wed 20 Jul 16:

“There is definitely a worrying movement of people, especially on the Left, that is pushing for anyone who disagrees to be silenced.
Whatever happened to “I may disprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Too many people have forgotten this lesson. Easily fixed for Chip.

A quick binding plebiscite on halting muslim immigration for 30 years will give the comrades instructions on the matter chiselled in stone.

Beats me the marxist left aren’t crying out for the voice of the people to be heard. Bwaaaa.”

Manny of Melbourne (Wed 20 Jul 2016):

“Sack those that don’t have the BALLS to speak the TRUTH & What a load of bull from The Australian. You’re doing a top job Andrew , Continue , never be muzzled.”

‘Hansonism is not Nationalism, Kruger is not Hanson’

by Nathan Sykes


“It is not untrue that Sonia Kruger’s expression of disquiet about Islam in Australia is most welcome indeed. These verities need to be spoken, and every celebrity or public figure that does so, helps break down the taboo. But what does it all really amount to and is it genuinely sincere?
It is too early to cast aspersions on Sonia Kruger’s motives for joining the anti-Islam chorus, but her forerunner and possible inspiration is not at all encouraging.

Twenty years ago Pauline Hanson was elected on a wave of raw national sentiment regarding fears of its composition and the direction the nation was taking. She spoke the words she now denies uttering, that Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians. At the time, this was said with the same exigence that fears about Islam are now communicated.

But what happened to that message? Did the problem ameliorate itself, or did the supposed fixers choose to deny the problem as their method of fix?

Pauline Hanson is back in the federal Senate, but now riding on the anti-Islam ticket. She “fears” for the country again, even though she rejects ever having uttered concern about the Asianising of Australia.

Moreover, she never used her influence to address that Asianising when she had the power, and turned her back on followers who took her at her word. Much later, she found herself jailed for electoral fraud when Tony Abbott set the dogs of his “Australians for honest politics” dirty ops group onto her.

Oddly, prior to Tony Abbott’s election as Prime Minister in 2013, Hanson expressed admiration for Abbott and even said that she would vote for him. Now she is finally blaming Abbott and Howard for her false imprisonment and fall in fortunes. But what gives? Where is the consistency in this woman? How does this bode, not just for her followers who believe in her for real change, but for the issues they entrust her with?

The one thing you hear echoing continually around patriot circles (apart from anxieties about Islam) is the notion of populism to achieve its ends.

But where does populism truly take a movement once it has achieved its goal?

Those who backed Hanson in 1998 held that her popularity would be crucial to steering Australia away from the globalist tree-trunk they feared us crashing into. But it never did, because once achieving popularity, Pauline Hanson found she quite enjoyed it. She toned down her rhetoric, flirted with ‘respectability’ and eventually wound up on Dancing With The Stars. Yet, this notion of her as emblematic of all the inherent ‘racist’ demons of Nationalist Australia persists on the deluded globalist side, while patriots lap up her brand of inclusive Nationalism-lite.

On ABC’s Q&A program last Monday night, as a throng of hysterical protesters and a phalanx of her civic supporters made noise outside the studio, Pauline Hanson stated that we are a “multi-racial” country. What’s more, she meant it. But the globalists, students, multicultis, et al, don’t seem to process that vital piece of information — and nor do the civic patriots who follow her. If they did, they might decode it to reveal the woman’s essence, that she is a misunderstood conservative — an angel fallen from grace with the Liberal party where she most likely belongs and doubtless desires to be.

Her election had less to do with her trumpeting of anti-Islam rhetoric and more to do with the absence of a harder-line conservative Liberal on the ballot paper. By and large, the vote was conservative, but Turnbull was not seen as conservative. Hanson was. Had Abbott been restored, the outcome would have been very different.

Would those same voters have cast their tick for Abbott on the belief that he is “tough on Moslems”? Most probably. And was he ever THAT tough on Moslems? No, because it was he that signed off the importation of Syrian refugees full well knowing any talk about taking in predominantly Christian refugees was nonsense. In truth, is Abbott any different from Turnbull but in terms of perception? There are differences, of course, but when it comes to the crunch of this imperative matter of Australian social cohesion and our ethnic identity there is none at all because both are globalists.

Hanson is a populist, NOT a nationalist, ergo Hansonism is NOT nationalism. She is not patriotism either, because a populist such as her doesn’t even leave a tip for the room attendants once they’ve delivered her bags to her suite: she has historically slammed the door in her fellow patriots’ faces.

Someone like Jacqui Lambie has held much firmer to her principles some of which we share, but the media are no longer interested in her: she doesn’t have the magic ‘populism’ anymore.

Along comes Sonia Kruger speaking the unspeakable about Islam. Again, this is very welcome, but never forget us ordinary non-celebrity grassroots actual Australians in this movement have been saying the same thing for years. We have been ostracised by both sides for our views as nationalists. Likewise, the softcore ponies of the civic patriot movement are also demonised, yet support “multi-racialism” and denounce the perceived “anti-Semitism” of nationalists, so they view themselves as the good guys to our bad guys. Thus, all is illusion; every bit of it so far. The illusion on the left is that they have a cause to rally against, and the illusion on the civic right is that they finally have a champion. But now they have Sonia Kruger.

Sonia is a celebrity, and her career comes first. We will never know if she uttered the words in the expectation of sharpening her profile in the light of ‘Hansonism’ and we won’t make that judgement call.

But we have learned that populism is a route to guaranteed failure, and once the excitement dies down, and the illusions become less blurry, the issue will remain unaddressed and the only ones burdening themselves with it will not be these popular personalities, but us ordinary folk who enjoy no payday for our notoriety.”


Leave a Reply