Sinn fein- the new nazi party?

cdebru

if you want my views on the eu thats another thing
i dont like the way its going
and no i would not agree with majority voting in the eu
as it is supposed to be a community of independent sovereign states
not provinces of a super state
my honest opinion is that we are handing over things that in later years we will come to regret

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
and no i would not agree with majority voting in the eu

You’re against majority voting in the case of decision-making between European states, but you’re more than happy to impose majority voting on the question of the unification of the two Irish states.

You should probably work at consistency in your logic.

cdebru

You’re against majority voting in the case of decision-making between European states, but you’re more than happy to impose majority voting on the question of the unification of the two Irish states

my logic is that independent sovereign nations should make decisions that are in the interest of the people who live in that state

i did not say anywhere that i wanted to impose anything on anybody
i merely pointed out that majorities depend on where you count them
if you view ireland as one country then the majority you would count would be 32 counties

not the majoriy in 6 or 5 or 4 or 22 of the counties

if who accept partition as sinn fein do then you presumably have to count the majority in the 6 as well as the 26 counties together and separately

but if it is just a head count
then if some day nationalists outnumber unionists in the 6 counties
should they just accept
the will of the majority
no quibbles
i think we have all or nearly all realised that is not very realistic
the views and worries of the minority now and then have to be upheld

cdebru

It was a land grab of territories that both Serbia and Croatia claimed were populated by ethnic Serbians and Croatians respectively. That’s called irredentism, not imperialism - which was your (false) assertion.

no it was not
it was an attempted grab of the whole of bosnia


i honestly think you are confused between totalitarianism, and fascism
fascist governments in spain italy portugal japan germany were racist and imperialistic

. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.



!





Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color. In Fascism, one segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second class.

i did not write that but google definition of fascism thats what u get

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
my logic is that independent sovereign nations should make decisions that are in the interest of the people who live in that state

Except that the Irish Republic and the British Province of Northern Ireland are not one, but two states.

i did not say anywhere that i wanted to impose anything on anybody

You are happy with the idea of diluting the majority vote of one state with the vote of a larger neighbour. That’s a pretty big imposition.

i merely pointed out that majorities depend on where you count them
if you view ireland as one country then the majority you would count would be 32 counties

Again, it’s not one country - it’s presently two. That’s the reality.

but if it is just a head count
then if some day nationalists outnumber unionists in the 6 counties
should they just accept
the will of the majority
no quibbles
i think we have all or nearly all realised that is not very realistic
the views and worries of the minority now and then have to be upheld

So you’ve given up on any peaceful solution then and would prefer to advocate tyranny by the minority then rather than the majority?

no it was not
it was an attempted grab of the whole of bosnia

Complete rubbish. I suggest you read up on the history of the region - including Croatian motivations as well as the Serbian irredentist aspirations that incidentally were instrumental in the start of the First World War.

i honestly think you are confused between totalitarianism, and fascism
fascist governments in spain italy portugal japan germany were racist and imperialistic

I’ve given historical evidence and you’ve yet to address it. All you’re doing is the literary equivalent of putting you hands over your ears and loudly repeating yourself. Until you address the evidence I’ve presented you’re not going to be very convincing.

Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

I’ve never denied that Germany had a Fascism that was fundamentally racist. But I have pointed out that of all the Fascist regimes that were not satellite states of Germany, it was the only one. And last time I checked the exception does not prove the rule.

i did not write that but google definition of fascism thats what u get

I recommend you read up on it a bit more:

“[Fascism is] Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality” - The Doctrine of Fascism, B. Mussolini, 1932.

That alone seems to contradict your in-depth Googling...

earwicker

Originally posted by monument
I retract my statement saying an independent NI would be a utopia – as shown by you compromise is not a real word, rather then getting a fair system each side wants to do it their way.

I dislike your implicit characterization of my post. I am simply being realistic in my assessment of the way things stand and the agreement that has been signed.

Have you actually looked at the GFA? It is grounded in compromise on the basis of consent. It has for the most part been endorsed by the major players. It is not without difficulties regarding its implementation, but at least it has the merit of being a realworld attempt at a solution.

Your response implies that the GFA should be thrown out in favour of a fantasy rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. You seem to be advocating just sweeping aside the identifications of the overwhelnming majority in the North and offer them a half-baked alternative. Besides there is little desire for this independent state.

What if the majority (consisting of both sides) have been saying overwhelmingly that they simply don't see it as an option? You would have to impose it on them. Would imposed independence on people be recipe for peace? Imagine it was done to you. What would you do?

Anyway, it doesn't seem like we'll agree on this, so feel free not to respond.

bus77

Originally posted by The Corinthian

I recommend you read up on it a bit more:

“[Fascism is] Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality” - The Doctrine of Fascism, B. Mussolini, 1932.

That alone seems to contradict your in-depth Googling...

You've used the defininion written by a power hungry fella like Mussolini(as if he's going to say something bad about it?) And used it as a counter to what people are trying to say to you?

Republicans/Nationalists dont want to "gain power" in the north. They want to see a compleate end to British occupation. A chunk of England in Ireland was never going to work. Not with the amount of bad blood between our two countrys. A fact you put down to racism. Ofcouse the lines have become blured over the years between racism and nationalism, but that does not take away the underlying cause enough to use a word like "facist". Or a "racist" badge on people trying to explain that to you.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bus77
Not with the amount of bad blood between our two countrys.

Nonsense.
Theres no bad blood between us and the UK , it is one of our largest trading partners and a place where Irish people went to work for decades.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bus77
You've used the defininion written by a power hungry fella like Mussolini(as if he's going to say something bad about it?) And used it as a counter to what people are trying to say to you?

Of course he wasn’t going to say anything bad about it, but if (as was claimed) his was a fundamentally racist ideology, then I doubt he would have been shy about admitting it either - Hitler wasn’t, after all. Yet he unambiguously rejects the notion.

So what I’ve done is used a relevant reference in the literature of a particular philosophy as evidence to debunk a spurious assertion that originated from nothing more than a personal opinion and backed up by what that person effectively read on the back of a matchbox.

Republicans/Nationalists dont want to "gain power" in the north. They want to see a compleate end to British occupation. A chunk of England in Ireland was never going to work. Not with the amount of bad blood between our two countrys. A fact you put down to racism.

What I put down to racism is the need to judge others based upon their ethnic background, such as the one you’re repeatedly demonstrated. You don’t even deny it.

Ofcouse the lines have become blured over the years between racism and nationalism, but that does not take away the underlying cause enough to use a word like "facist".

You’ll note I never called you a Fascist. Neither have I claimed Sinn Fein are racist. I’ve only called you racist as you’ve demonstrated racist beliefs in this thread.

gaelic cowboy

WOW Necromancer that was one hell of a good post earlier.

monument

Originally posted by earwicker
It has for the most part been endorsed by the major players. It is not without difficulties regarding its implementation, but at least it has the merit of being a realworld attempt at a solution.

And their I was thinking there is massive problems with the GFA, that one major player is not endorsing it, and that it is stalled.... how wrong I most be.

Originally posted by earwicker
Anyway, it doesn't seem like we'll agree on this, so feel free not to respond.

That sums up NI politics well.

bus77

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What I put down to racism is the need to judge others based upon their ethnic background, such as the one you’re repeatedly demonstrated. You don’t even deny it.

You’ll note I never called you a Fascist. Neither have I claimed Sinn Fein are racist. I’ve only called you racist as you’ve demonstrated racist beliefs in this thread.

Basicly this was the course of events (in my head)...

I took your use of the word "Fascist"(I now understand it's idelology) to simply meen "Persuit of power/Racisim" and then "National Militarism" to meen you were trying to sum up the north/Sinn Fein In a sort of Nazi/Racist plot.

I was basicly trying to make you see the Ideology of the Nationalisim side of things by useing historical perspective only, and then getting pissed off and going deeper when you started calling me a racist.

damn it :mad:

Ahh It's not all bad though, I think I have the Americans sussed now (something about a Magic, sometimes fascist kingdom:D)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bus77
I took your use of the word "Fascist"(I now understand it's idelology) to simply meen "Persuit of power/Racisim" and then "National Militarism" to meen you were trying to sum up the north/Sinn Fein In a sort of Nazi/Racist plot.

Actually I actually rejected that for SF (or any other group) to be Fascist it also need be racist - of course that’s not to say that the two are exclusive either, just that they are not necessarily and inextricably linked. Militant nationalism is something I did bring up with respect to both SF and Fascism, but that’s because both either actively peruse or condone it.

Nonetheless, until you brought it up, I don’t think I ever mentioned Fascism in response to your posts.

I was basicly trying to make you see the Ideology of the Nationalisim side of things by useing historical perspective only, and then getting pissed off and going deeper when you started calling me a racist.

The kernel of your argument boiled down to a historical justification for judging an entire ethnic group. This is a classic rationalization of race theory - the classification of a racial or ethnic group based upon history or pseudo-science.

Ahh It's not all bad though, I think I have the Americans sussed now (something about a Magic, sometimes fascist kingdom:D)

I think I’m beginning like you now. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.

earwicker

Originally posted by monument
And their I was thinking there is massive problems with the GFA, that one major player is not endorsing it, and that it is stalled.... how wrong I most be.

Indeed. You seem to think that I don't believe there are problems with the GFA. I never said it was perfect. I have been discussing the problems with it in this thread. I also said that it had problems with implementation. I don't get the point you are trying to make.

The GFA is, however, in place and has the majority of popular support. Tossing it out in favour of a half-baked idea of independence seems overly idealistic, precipitous and dangerous to me. Your negativity regarding the GFA also seems defeatist. It has not stalled completely. SF are communicating with the DUP, and the consensus view is that devolution seems now to be within striking distance. Should the process be thrown away then because the DUP and their supporters-- 25.71% of the population of NI-- disagree with it?

An odd understanding of the principle of consent.

<edit for clarity>

pdh

Yea, I support them, however I am getting a bit concerned that they are watering down republican socialist principles to gain popular support.

Will just have to keep a closer eye on them

monument

An independent state would be full devolution.

Leaving out the both paths - staying in the Union, or joining the Republic - which are *open* as options, the GFA could run its course, at which point an independent state *could* be another option.

It my view it could possible be a more democratic option, where the state is of the people of NI, not the Republic or the UK. A state where the current feeling of one group of people who do not want to be living under a UK government (or “under their flag”), is not just transferred to another group, who do not want to live under the Republic state.

As for consent – I don’t really know why you’re going on about it, as I haven’t said there is even one single person in NI that wants an independent state – but two main groups who are single-minded about wanting to be apart of two different states – rather then wanting a state of all the people of NI.

In addition – yes this idea of an independent state is probably overly idealistic. However, only dangerous to those who are single-minded about being “British” or “Irish”, nationalism based on race (culture, or religion) is the real dangerous thing in NI.

earwicker

Originally posted by monument

As for consent – I don’t really know why you’re going on about it, as I haven’t said there is even one single person in NI that wants an independent state – but two main groups who are single-minded about wanting to be apart of two different states – rather then wanting a state of all the people of NI.

In addition – yes this idea of an independent state is probably overly idealistic. However, only dangerous to those who are single-minded about being “British” or “Irish”, nationalism based on race (culture, or religion) is the real dangerous thing in NI.

If no one wants it, then why are you arguing for it? Even though I may recognize the frustration that gives rise to it, I've been disagreeing with the hypothetical because it often translates into doing nothing now.

But I'm glad we agree it is overly idealistic. And when I say its dangerous, I simply mean that no-one signed on to an agreement which asked them to shed their historical traditions and identifications. Under these current conditions, the implementation of an independent NI state would have no popular support, would be immesely problematic, and would have the effect of radicalizing and further entrenching both sides.

Looking away down the road at a possible independent NI state is all well and good. I probably might even agree with you. However, it does nothing in the here and now where sectarian divisions and identifications still exist and still reproduce themselves.

And, for what it's worth, doing something here and now is, to me anyhow, the most responsible and best course of action. That's why despite my reservations I think sticking with the GFA is the best option.

monument

Originally posted by earwicker
That's why despite my reservations I think sticking with the GFA is the best option.

I never said not to, in fact I said an independent state could be an another option after the GFA runs its course.

As for sectarian divisions and 'identifications', they are the very reason the middle ground of an independent state is better then nationalism based on race (culture, or religion) - a goverment for everyone of NI, not one side or the other...

Personally do *you* think that would be better?

earwicker

Originally posted by monument
I never said not to, in fact I said an independent state could be an another option after the GFA runs its course.

As for sectarian divisions and 'identifications', they are the very reason the middle ground of an independent state is better then nationalism based on race (culture, or religion) - a goverment for everyone of NI, not one side or the other...

Personally do *you* think that would be better?

I'm still not sure what you mean by "after the GFA runs its course." I'd be more concerned with getting it to the point where it can run its course.

As to your last question: Do I think a state can/ should transcend sectarianism and accommodate other cultures/ ethnicities? Yes. Should the state and church be separate? Yes. That said, this shouldn't have to mean that everyone has to live in a place where people can't identify with a background without being labelled racist or [insert slur here].

I think the point with respect to the current situation (and this to me is the thing of paramount importance here: to ignore it is plain silly) in the North, however, is that devolution needs to happen and there needs to be a fair representation of all parties.

Until the majority says otherwise, I accept that NI is the UK. In the future should the majority consent to join a properly secular Republic, I'd welcome them. If, in the far, far distant future, the majority decide to become a separate state, or the 51st state, my faded ghost will have to live with that too.

monument

I’m afraid I am going to push for an answer on this one… (keep in mind you have said what you’d accept, now I want to know what you’d think as better…)

Personally which do *you* think would be better (a) an independent NI, (b) NI as a UK region, (c) NI as a ROI region?

earwicker

It's pretty obvious what I think. The people of NI are the ones to make the decision.

<edit for clarity>

monument

Thet's very nice - but I asked you which do you personally think would be better, not what way you think it should come about.

So, which would you pick?

(a) an independent NI
(b) NI as a UK region
(c) NI as a ROI region

earwicker

Originally posted by monument
Thet's very nice - but I asked you which do you personally think would be better, not what way you think it should come about.

So, which would you pick?

(a) an independent NI
(b) NI as a UK region
(c) NI as a ROI region

Again, it's pretty obvious what I think.

I disagreed with your utopia, and I am not a unionist. Clear enough?

<edit for sleepy typos>

Mighty_Mouse

D)Ulster returned as part of the republic. A 32 county Ireland in which unionist culture is welcomed as much as nationalist culture. I think c could be a step towards the ultimate though

(c) NI as a ROI region

bus77

Originally posted by monument
(c) NI as a ROI region

But in another 30 years till this EU stuff takes hold.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
D)Ulster returned as part of the republic. A 32 county Ireland in which unionist culture is welcomed as much as nationalist culture. I think c could be a step towards the ultimate though

How can unionist culture be welcomed in the Republic? By definition it wishes to remain in the Union - hint: the name gives it away.

Having read through some of the reactions of self-professed nationalists in this thread, I would also have to say were I a unionist, or even protestant, I would be very sceptical of such a welcome.

After all neither side appears to be open to compromise at all. Unionists may continually reject any ‘hands of friendship’ but at the same time Nationalists appear to only want unification in only a republic, on their terms (and those are terms that those of us from the south mightn’t like either, BTW).

An interesting compromise that was mooted years ago (it might have been Conor Cruise O’Brien) was unification, but for Ireland to join the commonwealth. Nationalists immediately rejected this - yet expect unionists to compromise and accept cross border influence instead?

All very depressing, but hardly surprising. After all, when was the last time you heard a rebel or loyalist song about peaceful co-existence?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bus77
But in another 30 years till this EU stuff takes hold.

Ironically, European unification may be the only even vaguely peaceful solution to the whole damned mess.

thejollyrodger

Mary Lou was easily the most attractive looking of the EU candidates.

Ugh.. she is ugly !! puke

I would never vote for Sinn Fein since they are a maffia terrorist organistion

Mighty_Mouse

How can unionist culture be welcomed in the Republic?

So nationalists in northern Ireland either; do not have a culture or have an unwelcomed one?

Having read through some of the reactions of self-professed nationalists in this thread, I would also have to say were I a unionist, or even protestant, I would be very sceptical of such a welcome.

The northern ireland peace process is still in very early stages but I think everyone has to hope for a time where the vast majority of both communities feel comfortable working peacefully together and have nothing to fear from each other. ie. things like cross community work, a community-wide acceptable police force in existance for say 10years, a history of joint decision making between cultures, north-south/north-uk permanent mechanisms, joint community schools/universitys/social centres and steps towards integrated housing etc etc etc ...........IMO will all contribute to a huge drop in the aminosity between both sides.

When this happens, if unionism have a right to most orange-order parades (in acceptable areas), right to have union-jack displayed, right to choose "god save the queen", maybe even government funding for traditional unionist practices such as lambeg drumming etc etc then what would unionists have to fear from joining a united Ireland?

ps. will also make sense economically at some stage in the future as the northern economy becomes more and more self-sufficient.

Meh

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
When this happens, if unionism have a right to most orange-order parades (in acceptable areas), right to have union-jack displayed, right to choose "god save the queen", maybe even government funding for traditional unionist practices such as lambeg drumming etc etc then what would unionists have to fear from joining a united Ireland?

If nationalists have a right to fly the tricolor, march in Easter Rising commemorative parades, government funding for traditional nationalist practices like the GAA and the Irish language, anti-discrimination legislation, fair employment laws etc. then what do nationalists have to fear from staying in the UK? What's sauce for the goose...