jerry pdx Italian island sees 500 migrants wash up on shore in 48 hrs: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/19/italian-island-sees-500-illegal-migrants-land-in-48-hours/
I like this article because it gives some stats:
"Not long after the discovery of the boat, another small vessel was found by a local patrol boat with 21 migrants on board, including three children and six women. At around 4:30 a.m. a much larger ship was intercepted by the Port Authority with 155 people on board, including 21 children and 11 women".
"The final vessel landed on the island at around 6 a.m. containing 65 migrants, which had been discovered adrift by a Port Authority patrol boat around 30 miles off the Lampedusa coast. In total, the past 48-hours had seen around 500 migrants arrive on the island, according to the newspaper".
The wording in this article is interesting:
"155 people aboard (in one of the arriving vessels), "including 21 children and 11 women".
Why didn't they just say 123 men instead of calling them "people"? I think what we see here is a reluctance to clearly state the sharply skewed gender ratio, even though they published some stats that clearly show it's mostly a bunch of men, undoubtedly young military age ones. Since around 50% (or higher, as I personally suspect), of migrant "minors" are adult men posing as children, and almost all underage migrant children are male, the "minors" are going to be close to half adult men so the ratio of men is even higher than the stats say.
Then they throw in "including 21 children and 11 women". Why "including"? They make it sound like it's understood that these boats will be filled with all men but any women and kids are some kind of aberration. Why don't they ask the question as to why there are so many men but so few women and kids?
They didn't supply a gender ratio for the final boat of 65 that washed ashore. I'd be willing to bet that there were no women or minors on that one. It was loaded with nothing but young men.
I'll pose the question this article should have asked:
If these young men are all conflict refugees escaping war, instant death, starvation and extreme violence, as they all claim, then why did they leave the women, children and old people behind to suffer and die? Why did they not stay behind to protect more the more vulnerable from all those horrors? Or maybe they are they simply liars and frauds making false claims about being "conflict refugees"? One or the other, there's only two possible choices that would explain the overwhelmingly high ratio of young men.
These boat migrants are a snapshot of what will happen if we open our borders to Africa and the Muslim world, millions of young males will pour in with very few women and actual children. They are denied women due to polygamous practices, female infanticide and gender based abortions and they see beautiful White women on the internet, so migrate to the West to get them. They lie about being conflict refugees to get to the Western paradise but we don't have a duty of supply them women, they can stay home and change things there if they don't like it.
jerry pdx
ReplyDeleteItalian island sees 500 migrants wash up on shore in 48 hrs: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/19/italian-island-sees-500-illegal-migrants-land-in-48-hours/
I like this article because it gives some stats:
"Not long after the discovery of the boat, another small vessel was found by a local patrol boat with 21 migrants on board, including three children and six women. At around 4:30 a.m. a much larger ship was intercepted by the Port Authority with 155 people on board, including 21 children and 11 women".
"The final vessel landed on the island at around 6 a.m. containing 65 migrants, which had been discovered adrift by a Port Authority patrol boat around 30 miles off the Lampedusa coast. In total, the past 48-hours had seen around 500 migrants arrive on the island, according to the newspaper".
The wording in this article is interesting:
"155 people aboard (in one of the arriving vessels), "including 21 children and 11 women".
Why didn't they just say 123 men instead of calling them "people"? I think what we see here is a reluctance to clearly state the sharply skewed gender ratio, even though they published some stats that clearly show it's mostly a bunch of men, undoubtedly young military age ones. Since around 50% (or higher, as I personally suspect), of migrant "minors" are adult men posing as children, and almost all underage migrant children are male, the "minors" are going to be close to half adult men so the ratio of men is even higher than the stats say.
Then they throw in "including 21 children and 11 women". Why "including"? They make it sound like it's understood that these boats will be filled with all men but any women and kids are some kind of aberration. Why don't they ask the question as to why there are so many men but so few women and kids?
They didn't supply a gender ratio for the final boat of 65 that washed ashore. I'd be willing to bet that there were no women or minors on that one. It was loaded with nothing but young men.
I'll pose the question this article should have asked:
If these young men are all conflict refugees escaping war, instant death, starvation and extreme violence, as they all claim, then why did they leave the women, children and old people behind to suffer and die? Why did they not stay behind to protect more the more vulnerable from all those horrors? Or maybe they are they simply liars and frauds making false claims about being "conflict refugees"? One or the other, there's only two possible choices that would explain the overwhelmingly high ratio of young men.
These boat migrants are a snapshot of what will happen if we open our borders to Africa and the Muslim world, millions of young males will pour in with very few women and actual children. They are denied women due to polygamous practices, female infanticide and gender based abortions and they see beautiful White women on the internet, so migrate to the West to get them. They lie about being conflict refugees to get to the Western paradise but we don't have a duty of supply them women, they can stay home and change things there if they don't like it.
Mine will be--"I WROTE with Stix"(at least on his blogsite).
ReplyDelete--GRA