The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

legocrazy505

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Support for immigration is consider a left wing issue.

The lunatic No Borders crowd are leftists. It is ok to call them lunatics as that is what they clearly are. Anyone calling for poeple to unlock their houses and cars and to leave them unlocked would also be called a lunatic.

Calling for a country to be unlocked is the same thing.

It is crazy to open our borders to the world.


That's why I posed my question about support for unlimited immigration. You may have since noted that the left are unwilling to answer the question.
What are they afraid of?
That if they answer people will see them as foolish?

If you think your own position is foolish and indefensible then perhaps you should row back from it.


I see your article had the headline.
Ireland refuses asylum to 90pc of applicants

So what?

All political parties seem to support open and unlimited immigration. No party has placed a limit on immigration which makes what I say true.

It is bizarre that supposed nationalist parties like Sinn Fein support unlimited immigration. They are lying about their own nature.

I'm on the left and answered your question, though. Stop generalising, please.

Why didn't you read the article, I said all, don't just read the headline that I know is not overly relevant.

If you had actually read the article you'd note we take in hardly any refugees/asylum seekers compared to similar EU members like Denmark. While that's happening Ireland is ahead on deportation of illegal immigrants. Please tell me how that's "unlimited"?

The problem is though there's a problem when some of the right call for isolated nations, there's a big difference between a sensible border policy (one I support) and a completely isolated and closed border.

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Head in the sand type refusal to debate.

You support unlimited immigration in the sense you refuse to state an upper limit. Therefore, there is no upper limit.

Are you unwilling to clearly state your own position as it sounds foolish?

Thanks for that projection. Keep rolling out those straw men arguments.

Muhammed_1

Brian? wrote: »

Is all culture worth saving? I don't believe so.

I may have chosen my phrasing poorly. Im not cheerleading the death of a culture. I'm celebrating an increasingly tolerant and multicultural society. Happy?

But society is not increasingly tolerant.

That is a fatal flaw in your world view.

By forcing multiculturalism onto people you are destroying your own freedoms.

Your attitude that the world is getting better is responsible for Brexit and for Trump.

You're not only ignoring what people say, you are also ignoring the real world.

The world is becoming increasingly intolerant and divisive. People now openly express racist views where previously they didn't.

The power of the word racist is much reduced due to overuse and inappropriate use. Like antibiotics!


Forcing multicultural societies on people who don't want them is destroying the social fabric of countries.

France is close to a civil war. Before you object to that they do have a declared state of emergency and they do have heavily armed and masked soldiers on their streets.

Society is the west is breaking down and it is the result of out of touch elites and out of touch leftists.

Muhammed_1

alastair wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't support unlimited immigration.
But feel free to keep railing against windmills.

What limit have they placed on immigration?

If Sinn Fein don't support unlimited immigration you should be able to answer that question. Is the limit 1,000 or 10,000 etc?

If you fail to answer you will appear to be a dishonest debater, Don Q.

Walter H Price

it's an poutlet for those who are sick of being labeled constantly by SJY types, communities online etc where it still ok to make a racist or sexist joke and call out Islam for what it is.

Beyond that its a hodge podge, many right leaning atheists turn to the alt right and reject the traditional religious right. To be honest gay rights don't really matter too much , but there's very little acceptance of the Trans stuff and the other rainbow of genders now been bandied about. Many menisits and MGTOW types are attracted to it because of its open opposition to feminism and gender equality. But again the majority are not overly interested in the sex issue , for example the will support Le Pen in France as much as the did Trump or will Wilders in the Netherlands.

The main areas of interest are anti immigration , particularly Muslim and African immigration into the west , Right leaning social and economic policy's , many would support the death penalty , cuts to social welfare , deportation of migrants etc.. the main ares of contention remain around religion and moral outlook , Moralistic alt right atheists may sty maintain very traditional views on things like abortion , gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. Hedonistic alt right atheists may be more supportive or indifferent to thees things e.e. i don't care about the gays either way , support abortion on demand and the legalization , control and tax of all drugs. I support small government , reduced welfare and an end to open door immigration policy's into the west.

The third group, i the one i find most puzzling and they are the religious Alt Right , Justin Barrett and the National Party here being an example , pro church , anti gay, anti abortion ,anti immigrant ,anti welfare pro nationalist . I often wonder how this is not a conflicting set of believes given the core of their christian faith is to be open and welcoming charitable kind to the poor etc... so this group are particularly hard to take seriously. Though i supported Trump , Brexit and will Le Pen and Wilders , i wouldn't vote for Barrett.

All in all it may form some new political movements but it remains to be seen how cohesive they will be.

Trump was the poster boy candidate a Wealthy White Male racist , misogynist with a tough stance on immigration and Islam , but Pence and his classic christian conservatism has put a bit of a dampener on things , it is encouraging however to prominent alt right figures like Steve Bannon get roles within the Trump administration.

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

But society is not increasingly tolerant.

That is a fatal flaw in your world view.

By forcing multiculturalism onto people you are destroying your own freedoms.

Your attitude that the world is getting better is responsible for Brexit and for Trump.

You're not only ignoring what people say, you are also ignoring the real world.

The world is becoming increasingly intolerant and divisive. People now openly express racist views where previously they didn't.

The power of the word racist is much reduced due to overuse and inappropriate use. Like antibiotics!


Forcing multicultural societies on people who don't want them is destroying the social fabric of countries.

France is close to a civil war. Before you object to that they do have a declared state of emergency and they do have heavily armed and masked soldiers on their streets.

Society is the west is breaking down and it is the result of out of touch elites and out of touch leftists.

Wow - it's the Henny Penny platform.
I await this civil war in France with bated breath.

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

What limit have they placed on immigration?

If Sinn Fein don't support unlimited immigration you should be able to answer that question. Is the limit 1,000 or 10,000 etc?

If you fail to answer you will appear to be a dishonest debater, Don Q.

What limit have you set on immigration? Since you haven't articulated any, you're clearly a supporter of unlimited migration too, or a dishonest debater.

See how that works?

SF have precisely the same number assigned to immigration numbers as all other political parties - none. Because it's a dumb notion to pretend that you can summon one up.

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

Nobody is buying your 'emotionalism' spin.

Just worth saying.

It's not spin, it's fact. And yes plenty agree, just not you.
You being the author of the previously cited "high quality post" suggesting members of the Alt right are just in need of girlfriends. :rolleyes:

legocrazy505

Walter H Price wrote: »

Trump was the poster boy candidate a Wealthy White Male racist , misogynist with a tough stance on immigration and Islam , but Pence and his classic christian conservatism has put a bit of a dampener on things , it is encouraging however to prominent alt right figures like Steve Bannon get roles within the Trump administration.

Is Trump really those things though? In my opinion, the alt-right have supported a fraud just like the people who claim Hillary was the best option ever because she's a woman, experienced and "cares for us".

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

It's not spin, it's fact. And yes plenty agree, just not you.
You being the author of the previously cited "high quality post" suggesting members of the Alt right are just in need of girlfriends. :rolleyes:

That's my opinion. I'm not passing it off as fact - as you seem to want for your, rather silly, opinion on, eh, 'emotionalism'. Seriously - nobody is buying it.

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

That's my opinion. I'm not passing it off as fact - as you seem to want for your, rather silly, option on, eh, 'emotionalism'. Seriously - nobody is buying it.

You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. And yes, I know that was your "opinion", as is the vast majority of this thread, obviously.
The point was others have had posts censored as being unworthy and your smear let stand and *liked* by the very person doing the thread-pruning, lol.

Pretty funny.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

You cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

Like you just claimed to?

Amazingfun wrote: »

And yes, I know that was your "opinion", as is the vast majority of this thread, obliviously.
The point was others have had posts censored as being unworthy and your smear let stand and *liked* by the very person doing the thread-pruning, lol.

Pretty funny.

Glad you're having fun.

Muhammed_1

legocrazy505 wrote: »

I'm on the left and answered your question, though. Stop generalising, please.

Why didn't you read the article, I said all, don't just read the headline that I know is not overly relevant.

If you had actually read the article you'd note we take in hardly any refugees/asylum seekers compared to similar EU members like Denmark. While that's happening Ireland is ahead on deportation of illegal immigrants. Please tell me how that's "unlimited"?

The problem is though there's a problem when some of the right call for isolated nations, there's a big difference between a sensible border policy (one I support) and a completely isolated and closed border.

The problem is the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they do.

No party has placed a limit on immigration and in that sense the parties suppport umlimited immigration.

I want a party to explicitily state that there is a limit, like Orban has done in Hungary.

Ireland is often acting in secret.
Why is our government unwilling to openly and straighforwardly discuss immigration?

It is because immigration does not have the support of the public. So the government will do it in private as that's what Germany wants. It is in this sense that Germany is dictating to Ireland, and to Europe.

Germany dictated its way through the financial crisis and Germany is now dictating its way through the immigration crisis caused by Germany itself.


We have taken Syrian refugees.
But it's very hard to get official figures, or locations where they have been placed.
Why is the government so secretive?

Who do the Government consider to be their boss?
It seems clear that thats Germany, and not the Irish people.

Muhammed_1

alastair wrote: »

What limit have you set on immigration? Since you haven't articulated any, you're clearly a supporter of unlimited migration too, or a dishonest debater.

See how that works?

SF have precisely the same number assigned to immigration numbers as all other political parties - none. Because it's a dumb notion to pretend that you can summon one up.

I haven't been asked to set a limit.

Now that I have been, I'll give a limit now.

100.

That's how a question is answered.

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

Like you just claimed to?

I never claimed otherwise. You did.

Chips Lovell

If you think France has embraced multicularlism, you're probably misunderstanding the term. They're quite the opposite.

The principal of laïcité is heavily enshrined in French law. From the state's perspective, you're French first and foremost and if you think that clashes with your culture/religion, tough luck. Hence the ban on religious clothing such as burqas etc in schools and hospitals. Even attempts to ban the "Burquini" this summer by a few French mayors.

Muhammed_1

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The problem is the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they do.

No party has placed a limit on immigration and in that sense the parties suppport umlimited immigration.

I want a party to explicitily state that there is a limit, like Orban has done in Hungary.

Ireland is often acting in secret.
Why is our government unwilling to openly and straighforwardly discuss immigration?

It is because immigration does not have the support of the public. So the government will do it in private as that's what Germany wants. It is in this sense that Germany is dictating to Ireland, and to Europe.

Germany dictated its way through the financial crisis and Germany is now dictating its way through the immigration crisis caused by Germany itself.


We have taken Syrian refugees.
But it's very hard to get official figures, or locations where they have been placed.
Why is the government so secretive?

Who do the Government consider to be their boss?
It seems clear that thats Germany, and not the Irish people.

If no party proposes a daily calorie intake limit, do all parties implicitly support unlimited obesity?

R P McMurphy

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The problem is the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they do.

No party has placed a limit on immigration and in that sense the parties suppport umlimited immigration.

I want a party to explicitily state that there is a limit, like Orban has done in Hungary.

Ireland is often acting in secret.
Why is our government unwilling to openly and straighforwardly discuss immigration?

It is because immigration does not have the support of the public. So the government will do it in private as that's what Germany wants. It is in this sense that Germany is dictating to Ireland, and to Europe.

Germany dictated its way through the financial crisis and Germany is now dictating its way through the immigration crisis caused by Germany itself.


We have taken Syrian refugees.
But it's very hard to get official figures, or locations where they have been placed.
Why is the government so secretive?

Who do the Government consider to be their boss?
It seems clear that thats Germany, and not the Irish people.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so focused on immigration? Do you think that it has had much of an impact on your life of livelihood up to this point or that it will do in the future?

Is it immigration from outside the EU or from within that you have an issue with?

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The problem is the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they do.

No party has placed a limit on immigration and in that sense the parties suppport umlimited immigration.

That's one perspective. I guess. They're all presumably supporters of the LUAS-driving cats too, since they've not articulated policy on that.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I want a party to explicitily state that there is a limit, like Orban has done in Hungary.

Orban hasn't set any limit on immigration. And best of luck getting any sort of electoral support for Orban style politics in Ireland.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Ireland is often acting in secret.
Why is our government unwilling to openly and straighforwardly discuss immigration?

It does - and it reflects the concerns of the electorate - it's not been a high profile issue. Immigration control platform candidates perform laughably badly in elections.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

It is because immigration does not have the support of the public.

Not a jot of evidence for that.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

So the government will do it in private as that's what Germany wants. It is in this sense that Germany is dictating to Ireland, and to Europe.

Germany is dictating nothing to Ireland on immigration.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Germany dictated its way through the financial crisis and Germany is now dictating its way through the immigration crisis caused by Germany itself.

Germany certainly landed the Schengen states with responsibility for many refugees after they had problems coping on their own, following the invite. That's fair.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We have taken Syrian refugees.
But it's very hard to get official figures, or locations where they have been placed.
Why is the government so secretive?

Numbers are public - and tiny. Perhaps there's concern about anti-refugee crazies who are a little obsessive on where refugees have been placed. In reality, the housing locations of Syrian refugees are no great secret.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Who do the Government consider to be their boss?
It seems clear that thats Germany, and not the Irish people.

No it's not. That's just nonsense.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

I never claimed otherwise. You did.

Nope - you did:

It's not spin, it's fact. And yes plenty agree, just not you.

Muhammed_1

Deleted User wrote: »

If no party proposes a daily calorie intake limit, do all parties implicitly support unlimited obesity?

I believe all parties support the limits prescribed by the HSE.
90 grams for sugar for example.

Has any party suggested a limit on the number of immigrants we accept?

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I believe all parties support the limits prescribed by the HSE.
90 grams for sugar for example.

No doubt you have the party policy documents supporting this belief?

Muhammed_1

alastair wrote: »

..

Numbers are public - and tiny. Perhaps there's concern about anti-refugee crazies who are a little obsessive on where refugees have been placed. In reality, the housing locations of Syrian refugees are no great secret.
...

Do you have an official source for the number of Syrians?

Your link is to a four month old newspaper article.

The article says that the government have agreed to an ADDITIONAL 260.

quote
The Government has announced plans to resettle an extra 260 refugees from Lebanon who have been displaced by the Syrian conflict.



Do you have an official source for the total number of supposed Syrians we have taken in?

Have these Syrians received housing ahead of Irish people?

Do you support Irish people living on the streets while Syrians are fast tracked?

Chips Lovell

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Has any party suggested a limit on the number of immigrants we accept?

I can't see any party proposing this. It makes the system unduly rigid.

For example, what happens if the HSE says they need to hire 20 more doctors and the government has to say, "sorry, we've hit the 50,000 limit for this year already"?

I think the current system is much more suitable.

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

Nope - you did:

Nice try. My original post was from myself with no claims of including anyone else. YOU responded with that with the ridiculous claim that "nobody" agreed with my pov. I replied that yes, others do, because I know others that do---but you have no way of speaking on behalf of all thread watchers/contributors.

Maybe stick with "they got no girlfriends" type post, it seems to be your forte.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

I replied that yes, others do, because I know others that do

So... that would be speaking on behalf of others. As I said.

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

So... that would be speaking on behalf of others. As I said.

lol, no it wasn't. I made zero mention of anyone else in my post, that's all you. And why you are so obsessed with this boring point is anyone's guess. YOU jumped in to claim "nobody" agreed, something you have no way of knowing in the first place.

Bye now

Muhammed_1

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I believe all parties support the limits prescribed by the HSE.
90 grams for sugar for example.

I've had a quick search for Sinn Fein's prospective daily calorie limit and am struggling to find anything.

Any suggestions on where I might find it? Or any of the other parties?

I might suggest that it is unlikely that any of them have proposed any limits on daily calorie intake. I think that if this is the case, then it is quite unfair of you to not treat this same 'refusal to suggest a limit' similarly as you have the below.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Has any party suggested a limit on the number of immigrants we accept?

I doubt it. I believe it's quite fair to say that the limits of immigration are set by the dynamics of the economy, both the Irish and the global. It would be strange to put a hard and fast number on it, as the dynamics of the system change so frequently as to render that number next to obsolete almost immediately after it would be published.

alastair

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Do you have an official source for the number of Syrians?

Your link is to a four month old newspaper article.

The article says that the government have agreed to an ADDITIONAL 260.

quote
The Government has announced plans to resettle an extra 260 refugees from Lebanon who have been displaced by the Syrian conflict.



Do you have an official source for the total number of supposed Syrians we have taken in?

Have these Syrians received housing ahead of Irish people?

Do you support Irish people living on the streets while Syrians are fast tracked?

It's a figure short of the 4,000 committed to taking in. Does the current tally have some sort of special significance to you? I've no problem with refugees being provided with housing.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

lol, no it wasn't. I made zero mention of anyone else in my post, that's all you.

Except that you did:

It's not spin, it's fact. And yes plenty agree, just not you.