The National Party

brightspark

The reason why FF and FG get a lot of the votes is because their policies are actually agreeable to most of us.

Sure there are things that we don't all agree with and occasionally people vote for others, but the minority parties do not appeal to large sections of the voters.

SF had their best election result, but still did not even get 25% of the seats, perhaps in another couple of decades when peoples' knowledge of "the troubles" are just what they have been taught in school, they might become more popular, but that remains to be seen.

However any party that have policies that only appeal to minorities will remain a minority.

ILoveYourVibes

brightspark wrote: »

The reason why FF and FG get a lot of the votes is because their policies are actually agreeable to most of us.

.

If they merged into one ..which i think they may and should.....then they would clear up

Realt Dearg Sec

coinop wrote: »

So you're issue lies with your dislike of Barrett rather than National Party policy? Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. I personally think Barrett is a fantastic speaker. I've linked the following video from the 3:50 timestamp mark. If this doesn't inspire you, you're ignorant of Irish history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnmDL65M_bU&t=3m50s

"Great minds discuss ideas...Small minds discuss people"

Proceeds to discuss a person.

Gregor Samsa

GT89 wrote: »

Barrett is not pro Irexit. The NP are against the idea of an EU army and want to leave the Euro and go back to the punt but they are not in favour of Ireland leaving the EU.

While they're not calling for an Irexit now, they're go onto make it very clear they're in favour of leaving the EU if they don't get their way in dismantling all the stuff that makes the EU the EU.

THE EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE
There is no immediate prospect of Ireland leaving the European Union by popular vote. If we do leave, it may well be the consequence of larger outside forces, the ongoing ramifications of Brexit for example. So it may not be the nationalists who take us out of the Union, but a schism within the anti-nationalists. As such, we do not view Brexit as a template that can simply be repackaged in an Irish context. The Irish situation is far more complicated.

With this in mind, the National Party intends to take a pragmatic and realistic approach towards the European Union. This approach may change over time, but our guiding principles will not. We are a Eurosceptic Party. We will fight, by whatever means available, to regain those national rights which have been undermined.

In the short term, we will advocate an adversarial approach on behalf of Irish national interests, similar to what countries like Poland and Hungary have done in response to the migrant crisis. If it is possible, we will work towards the creation of a nationalist bloc. But if we cannot achieve our aims within the European Union then we will leave.

Furthermore, they seem to be advocating leaving the EU as the last stage of a process, rather than the first one.

TWO UNIONS
Facts of Life. We can’t trust the European Union. We can’t trust the British. We can’t trust the Irish government. In order to conduct a successful and immediate withdrawal from the European Union, for example, we would need to be able to trust all three of them.

These three thorns need to be removed and probably in the reverse order.
[...]
We must create a strong and united country capable of standing on its own two feet, resilient enough to throw off the shackles of both Unions.

https://nationalparty.ie/the-national-idea/

Looks to me that they're just putting that topic on the back burner for a while, partly down to the fact that it's an incredibly unpopular one.

brightspark

During Primetime last night Justin Barrett made statements that Hazel Chu isn't ethnically or culturally Irish, and Ireland isn't her ancestral homeland.

The name Barrett came to Ireland courtesy of the Anglo Norman invasion...To be clear, his family were invaders who forcibly took land from the native Irish.

"Meaning 'bear mighty' the name Barrett is of Norman descent and was introduced into Ireland with the Anglo-Norman invasion of the twelfth century, that was led by Strongbow"

http://www.irishsurnames.com/cgi-bin/gallery.pl?name=barrett&capname=Barrett&letter=b


EDIT:

Ironically he was once known as Justin Slevin (the family name of those who adopted him) but he has chosen to use his biological parents name now.

Slevin really is an old Irish family name.

https://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Slevin

Gradius

Pherekydes wrote: »

They're not actually in to "serving the people". They're only in to seizing power.

Unlike those philanthropic angels in other parties.

Do people genuinely not understand what politicians are about?

And I see a lot of the usual dismissals about new political parties here, declaring, essentially, that we'll be the exception to the rule when looking at the world at large.

There's a genuine fear that people are going to lose what they value, and there's no better motivation than fear to get people off their ignorant arses. And that works both ways. Some fear losing their country, some fear being chucked out, it's all the same in the end. Look at the absolute state of the world and tell yourself "this is absolutely normal"

ancapailldorcha

GT89 wrote: »

Barrett is not pro Irexit. The NP are against the idea of an EU army and want to leave the Euro and go back to the punt but they are not in favour of Ireland leaving the EU.

The fact of the matter is the current levels of immigration are too high and unsustainable in the long run. We need to look at introducing an Australian style points system on an EU wide basis in order for immigration to sustainable.

Sorry but when I hear the phantom EU army trope being dropped my hackles raise. I would find it hard to believe that anyone going on about an EU army, the Euro, national sovereignty and whatnot doesn't want to leave the EU. Maybe he thinks it'd damage his chances to say it openly which just makes his abortion stance all the more moronic.

BarnardsLoop

Oh but sure didn't you hear? All the aborted foetuses are going to be conscripted into an EU army and paid a new minimum wage of €1.84!

No, I haven't forgotten about the frankly laughable crap Europhobes came out with at the time.

Gradius

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh but sure didn't you hear? All the aborted foetuses are going to be conscripted into an EU army and paid a new minimum wage of €1.84!

No, I haven't forgotten about the frankly laughable crap Europhobes came out with at the time.

Hyperbole aside, I'm quite curious as to logical endpoints in how people think.

It's easy to laugh and jeer about things in theoretical terms, but brexit is a very real thing that happened and with very real consequences that won't be known for a long time.

So jeering aside, what do you think is the outcome of this increasing social unrest?

Do you imagine it's all going to go away for some reason in like 10 years? I don't. Just about any metric you care to think about points to momentum in chaos.

The mindset of laughing nervously at things beginning to crumble all about you, dismissing it out of hand, is a bit mad to me.

Galwayguy35

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The national party would do better if they dropped barret and the ‘no to abortion’ shtick.

Theres space for a party in the ‘against mass immigration’ space and some of their other principals , but adding in the anti abortion part sours it.

Same with Renua, some good ideas but then they ruin it by thinking they are talking to voters from the 1960s when everyone went to mass weekly.

Geuze

1.The National Party believes that the territory of Ireland consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

2.The National Party believes strongly in the principle of a Constitutional Republic, founded on individual personal freedoms, rights and responsibilities. We reject and resist a totalitarianism whose essence is found in the totality of State power and the exercise of State authority, and not the ideological direction of that totality.

3.The National Party believes that the State is the crucible and natural patrimony of the Nation. The State ought not, therefore, be the master of the Nation, but the Nation the master of the State. It follows that the State should act at all times and in every instance, in the interests of the Nation, embodied in one indivisible Irish people. - OK, but what are they getting at here? They mean more than they say.

4.The National Party recognises the centripetal tendency of the bureaucratic State and its inevitable deleterious consequences in the quality and quantity of State level decision making. We therefore believe that a firm commitment to the principle and application of subsidiarity must be a central tenet of Government at every level. - do they mean more power to local government?

5.The National Party approaches our membership of the European Union from the principle of refusing to accept the threatened destruction of our Nation’s freedom, and will endeavour to restore those freedoms which have already, unjustly, been given away.

I don't agree that the EU takes away freedoms? What freedoms?


6. The National Party believes in an aristocracy of achievement within a democracy of opportunity, practised and established economically by the strong advocacy of Free Productive Enterprise. Consequently we endorse the inalienable right to the ownership of Private Property, and shall defend that right against the equally dangerous encroachment of both State Socialism and Monopoly Capitalism. - fair enough......


7.The National Party opposes unrestricted immigration, placing above all the preservation of national identity and culture as the bedrock of a principled patriotism. - most sensible people are against unrestricted non-EU immigration, but as members of the EU, we can't stop 100,000 French or Poles coming.


8. The National Party insists that no law should permit the provision of Abortion in Ireland.

Yes, fair enough, abortion isn't a solution to any problem.


9. The National Party demands a complete reform of our criminal justice system, placing the protection of society from criminality as its imperative value, up to and including restoration of the Death Penalty for particularly heinous crimes.

AFAIK, death penalty is incompatible with EU membership?


It's a no from me, as I support EU membership.

BarnardsLoop

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh but sure didn't you hear? All the aborted foetuses are going to be conscripted into an EU army and paid a new minimum wage of €1.84!

No, I haven't forgotten about the frankly laughable crap Europhobes came out with at the time.

Tbf the lisbon treaty,did lead to an erosion of workers rights,pay and conditions

Wouldnt dismiss these concerns out of hand

BarnardsLoop

Gradius wrote: »

Hyperbole aside, I'm quite curious as to logical endpoints in how people think.

It's easy to laugh and jeer about things in theoretical terms

It's easy to laugh and jeer about things when they're shown to be pathetic lies, too.

but brexit is a very real thing that happened and with very real consequences that won't be known for a long time.

So jeering aside, what do you think is the outcome of this increasing social unrest?

Do you imagine it's all going to go away for some reason in like 10 years? I don't. Just about any metric you care to think about points to momentum in chaos.

The mindset of laughing nervously at things beginning to crumble all about you, dismissing it out of hand, is a bit mad to me.

Who's nervous? And what's crumbling all about me? Forgive me for maybe jumping the gun here but you've yet to establish that "things are beginning to crumble".

Ultimately, what I fear as the result of increasing social unrest is a repeat incident of people looking for an easy ethnic group to scapegoat while dictators capitalise on that by brutalising them.

Hey, plenty enough people on this forum seem absolutely sure that any day now the walls are going to come tumbling down and the Saracens come riding in to destroy us.

piplip87

There's room for a right wing economic party in this country. Ones that will tackle the growing amount of people who expect the government to feed, house, and raise their kids while they sit on their holes moaning about why 24% isn't a majority.

I'd also be in favour of a points based emigration system from countries outside the EU and an end to Direct Provision whereby we will help those fleeing warzones and get rid of the chancers. I'd also be in favour of reporting those who don't stick to the rule of law.

What we need is an open honest discussion at a national level about immigration. I have been shot down on other forms as a racist because if my views. I am not racist I'm in favour of sensible restrictions and not having to force people to endure direct provision while in essentially limbo.

They anti EU crap doesn't appeal to me either. It has brought far more benefits than what we have given. I am concerned about the Apple Ruling though the EU should not have the right to dictate Ireland's Tax Affairs.

Barret and the NP are lunatics but if peoples genuine concerns are not addressed they will see more people joining.

Gradius

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

It's easy to laugh and jeer about things when they're shown to be pathetic lies, too.



Who's nervous? And what's crumbling all about me? Forgive me for maybe jumping the gun here but you've yet to establish that "things are beginning to crumble".

Ultimately, what I fear as the result of increasing social unrest is a repeat incident of people looking for an easy ethnic group to scapegoat while dictators capitalise on that by brutalising them.

Hey, plenty enough people on this forum seem absolutely sure that any day now the walls are going to come tumbling down and the Saracens come riding in to destroy us.

Lies or not, half-truths or not, society is evidently unhappy.

"What's crumbling about me?" Normality, I suppose. Brexit, Trump, far right, far left, street violence, protests, riots etc. All over the world. To laugh and jeer in the face of such reality simply requires a nervous disposition.

Your words are "I fear scapegoats..." Well, on this trajectory, that's 100% guaranteed.

So to my overall point, besides pointing at people and laughing, what do you propose is going to end all of this? Or do you accept that society is simply imploding and that's all there is to it?

To add, aggravating people who are already aggravated doesn't seem very intelligent. It is essentially "arguing" for the status quo, and it is the status quo that is turning people violent in the first place.

BarnardsLoop

Gradius wrote: »

Lies or not, half-truths or not, society is evidently unhappy.

I'd say it's of critical importance if society is unhappy because of lies. Can't really assuage someone's fears if those fears have no basis in reality, after all.

"What's crumbling about me?" Normality, I suppose. Brexit, Trump, far right, far left, street violence, protests, riots etc. All over the world. To laugh and jeer in the face of such reality simply requires a nervous disposition.

I only laugh and jeer at the grifters peddling lies and the weak minds that believe them. If a man tells you the Earth is flat, do you start worrying or do you laugh at his stupidity?

Your words are "I fear scapegoats..." Well, on this trajectory, that's 100% guaranteed.

So to my overall point, besides pointing at people and laughing, what do you propose is going to end all of this? Or do you accept that society is simply imploding and that's all there is to it?

To add, aggravating people who are already aggravated doesn't seem very intelligent. It is essentially "arguing" for the status quo, and it is the status quo that is turning people violent in the first place.

What do I think? Well, if societies start going the way of Poland and Hungary have then there's really no hope. Nothing I say or do will change that. After all, I'm just one person. But to take the view of someone who once capitalised on these kinds of fears:

Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

So at this juncture, I doubt much can be done.

CtevenSrowder

[QUOTE=BarnardsLoop;113856487


I only laugh and jeer at the grifters peddling lies and the weak minds that believe them. If a man tells you the Earth is flat, do you start worrying or do you laugh at his stupidity?

[/QUOTE]

No, you ask him why he thinks this, and then counter his points whilst showing him the evidence as to why it is globular. Laughing at them doesn't help anything.

Gradius

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

I'd say it's of critical importance if society is unhappy because of lies. Can't really assuage someone's fears if those fears have no basis in reality, after all.



I only laugh and jeer at the grifters peddling lies and the weak minds that believe them. If a man tells you the Earth is flat, do you start worrying or do you laugh at his stupidity?



What do I think? Well, if societies start going the way of Poland and Hungary have then there's really no hope. Nothing I say or do will change that. After all, I'm just one person. But to take the view of someone who once capitalised on these kinds of fears:



So at this juncture, I doubt much can be done.

The important point is that absolute lies go nowhere without unhappiness. Interpretations of truth gain a strong foothold when there is existing unrest, like now.

Add in "observed reality" to it, and it's a wrap.

It's all well and good to talk about living peaceably alongside an heretofore foreigner, when the reported news readily demonstrates those same foreigners detonate a bomb in a concert that your children may have attended.

It's all well and good to talk about re-educating yourself to live alongside a foreigner. It's different in reality when demands are put on you to adjust your heretofore normal life that requires extra effort that wasn't needed before, and that's not including the oftentimes chastisement that comes with it.

And so forth. In other words, the theories are all lovely, but the realities are the opposite. So when it comes down to growing frustration, the obvious answer is to "get rid" of the problem. It doesn't take much to channel that frustration with some embellished truth.

So, my conclusion is that the inevitable is at hand.one need only look about to see the living proof.

Lastly, you say "if societies go the way of Poland and Hungary...", Well, the clear example is Poland and Hungary itself. They changed. And every other country is going the same way at a remarkable pace.

People better start offering solutions instead of theories, double quick. laughing only makes things move quicker in the opposite direction. And I'll tell you what, I haven't seen one single solution offered by any established party, hence their decimation.

When a bloke is going mad about his house on fire, offering more petrol isn't going to calm him down.

Loafing Oaf

Gradius wrote: »

I haven't seen one single solution offered by any established party, hence their decimation.

What? When did this happen?

Gradius

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

What? When did this happen?

Deliberate misinterpretation is not funny.

Look at many other countries for the answer. Then look here and ask yourself "will we be the exceptions, and why?"

BarnardsLoop

When a bloke is mad that his house is on fire and attempting to point out that only a couple of the chairs are singed only results in him even more angrily insisting that no, his house really is on fire... At that point you're dealing with delusion, not reality.

Laughing doesn't help but less so than indulging the delusion.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, you ask him why he thinks this, and then counter his points whilst showing him the evidence as to why it is globular. Laughing at them doesn't help anything.

And if his beliefs are such that any attempts to present evidence that contradict them result in him labelling it as propaganda or otherwise falsified? Because that's quite a common theme among conspiracy theorists; whatever group is orchestrating the conspiracy is also powerful/wealthy/connected/whatever enough that it can falsify evidence.

Laughing at them doesn't help, no, but past a point there's little else you can do aside from give up and accept what's happening.

joe40

People calling for a right wing party?
What does that even mean. I always understood right wing to be pro capitalism now it seems to be anti immigration, pro nationalism, anti welfare, anti abortion, anti LGBT, the list goes on depending on who you are listening to.

As it stands the national party are nowhere near mainstream.

Loafing Oaf

Gradius wrote: »

Then look here and ask yourself "will we be the exceptions, and why?"

We seem to be so far, and we've had significant immigration for a while now.

Gradius

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

When a bloke is mad that his house is on fire and attempting to point out that only a couple of the chairs are singed only results in him even more angrily insisting that no, his house really is on fire... At that point you're dealing with delusion, not reality.

Laughing doesn't help but less so than indulging the delusion.



And if his beliefs are such that any attempts to present evidence that contradict them result in him labelling it as propaganda or otherwise falsified? Because that's quite a common theme among conspiracy theorists; whatever group is orchestrating the conspiracy is also powerful/wealthy/connected/whatever enough that it can falsify evidence.

Laughing at them doesn't help, no, but past a point there's little else you can do aside from give up and accept what's happening.

Okay, to distill the problem of reality versus theory, let's take a very simple example; housing.

Put yourself in two positions, one being a family that is struggling to afford a home (or council house, whatever), the other being the government that's supposed to be looking out for this family.

When the family sees/hears an obviously foreign family moved into a council home ahead of them...what message does that send to the family? The obvious is that "those foreign people are getting cared for by the government instead/ahead of me". There's all sorts of detail missing of course, but that's observed reality.

As the government, what can they do or say about it to placate the family?

How do you sell that idea as a positive? There's no point saying you'll build more homes when at the same time there's no end to immigration. It becomes a perpetually unsolvable problem. And the more it's observed, the more the frustration grows.

BarnardsLoop

Some people mean an ordinary (socially, economically, or both) right-wing party. Others mean, well to not beat around the bush, a fascist strongman who'll cleans society of the "degnerates" and the "invaders" and "those who would thwart our destiny".

But the problem is a rather simple one: Irish people weren't always considered 'white'. It doesn't even have any basis in biology, given how it has arbitrarily expanded and contracted throughout history to include or exclude groups of people who, today, most people would call white. And what was given can absolutely be taken away.

Because... What happens when you get rid of the "degenerates"? Of the "invaders"? Of every scapegoat that's been blamed for society's ills? Well, ultimately, society's ills aren't suddenly, magically fixed. Such societies typically have much deeper problems than can be so simply explained away. But the fascist, having only one trick, has to now find a new scapegoat to blame for the continued degradation of society. So people who were once considered 'white' are now not or are considered not 'white' enough. And on it goes, spiralling downwards into a smaller and smaller group of people considered 'white' until eventually it either implodes, or more usually, the group of people no longer considered 'white' outnumber those who are.

Which is why I find its popularity among people here so perplexing; do none of you think that when the time comes, you too won't be sacrificed at the altar of racial purity? Because believe me, if it comes to that, none of us will be safe. Maybe for a time but only until we outlive our usefulness to them.

Remember, this: Was how Irish people were depicted in the UK magazine Punch, as late as the nineteenth century.

If you support people like that, then know that you're nothing more than a 'useful idiot' to them.

CtevenSrowder

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Some people mean an ordinary (socially, economically, or both) right-wing party. Others mean, well to not beat around the bush, a fascist strongman who'll cleans society of the "degnerates" and the "invaders" and "those who would thwart our destiny".

But the problem is a rather simple one: Irish people weren't always considered 'white'. It doesn't even have any basis in biology, given how it has arbitrarily expanded and contracted throughout history to include or exclude groups of people who, today, most people would call white. And what was given can absolutely be taken away.

Because... What happens when you get rid of the "degenerates"? Of the "invaders"? Of every scapegoat that's been blamed for society's ills? Well, ultimately, society's ills aren't suddenly, magically fixed. Such societies typically have much deeper problems than can be so simply explained away. But the fascist, having only one trick, has to now find a new scapegoat to blame for the continued degradation of society. So people who were once considered 'white' are now not or are considered not 'white' enough. And on it goes, spiralling downwards into a smaller and smaller group of people considered 'white' until eventually it either implodes, or more usually, the group of people no longer considered 'white' outnumber those who are.

Which is why I find its popularity among people here so perplexing; do none of you think that when the time comes, you too won't be sacrificed at the altar of racial purity? Because believe me, if it comes to that, none of us will be safe. Maybe for a time but only until we outlive our usefulness to them.

Remember, this:
If you support people like that, then know that you're nothing more than a 'useful idiot' to them.

Honestly, I really think you overstate the number of racists and far-rightists in CA. They are a tiny minority.

BarnardsLoop

Gradius wrote: »

Okay, to distill the problem of reality versus theory, let's take a very simple example; housing.

Put yourself in two positions, one being a family that is struggling to afford a home (or council house, whatever), the other being the government that's supposed to be looking out for this family.

When the family sees/hears an obviously foreign family moved into a council home ahead of them...what message does that send to the family? The obvious is that "those foreign people are getting cared for by the government instead/ahead of me". There's all sorts of detail missing of course, but that's observed reality.

As the government, what can they do or say about it to placate the family?

Well obviously they need to build more social housing. Which is what plenty of people here have been saying for a long time now. The failure to do so isn't part of some plot to import foreigners and wipe us out, though.

There are far more banal but no less insidious reasons for that, mostly resulting from corruption and vested interests. Blaming immigrants is just looking for a simple scapegoat rather than confronting the harsh reality of continuing to vote in governments that won't deliver on their promises to build more social housing.

How do you sell that idea as a positive? There's no point saying you'll build more homes when at the same time there's no end to immigration. It becomes a perpetually unsolvable problem. And the more it's observed, the more the frustration grows.

Well, the uncomfortable fact that too many people don't want to face is that it's mostly a product of the massive, practically cartoonish level of wealth inequality in the world.

It's a bit like Ursula K. Le Guin's famous short-story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas; our wealth, in the West, is built on the back of suffering of so many people. Now personally I can't really fault those people for wanting to seek out a better life for themselves. After all, didn't Irish people do the same during the Famine? And didn't they face terrible discrimination because they were seen as barbarians invading America?

There won't be an end to immigration until people no longer have need to emigrate.

Gradius

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

We seem to be so far, and we've had significant immigration for a while now.

If you bothered to draw a graph of the indigenous/non-indigenous population of an area or country, I'm sure there would be a very distinct relationship with the degree of social upheaval.

In fact I'd bet you could draw baseline predictions. Indigenous population above 90%? No problems.

80%? The start of unrest and grumbling.

What I'm interested to see is the point of complete breakdown, which the United States will provide in due course. At what percentage does complete chaos/radical change take place? 50%?

Ireland is undergoing a practically unparalleled demographic change. If I remember correctly the government plan is to have the population of Ireland increase by at least an extra million people by 2040. So, roughly 25%.

We haven't seen the political changes here yet because of this rapidity, but it will no doubt catch up.

To better account of such a change, imagine an extra 100 million people moving into the United States in less than half a generation. If the place wasn't hanging over a cliff already all ready, imagine that extra impact.

ArchXStanton

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Yeah, just look at the likes of Viktor Orbán or Prawo i Sprawiedliwość in Poland. They're turned their respective nations into laughing stocks and that's what we really need here!

How many terrorist attacks or racially/religious motivated incidents in those countries?... If anything they're p!ssing themselves laughing at the idiocy of the rest of the EU... Of course they have to demonised for it...

BarnardsLoop

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Honestly, I really think you overstate the number of racists and far-rightists in CA. They are a tiny minority.

Going by what I've seen elsewhere and how they operate... I doubt it. Their most insidious tactic is to couch their objections in seemingly reasonable terms. And that they appeal to things like LGBT rights or women's rights but then turn around and start insulting those same groups, revealing their true intentions.

After all, the term 'alt-right' was coined by the American white-nationalist Richard Spencer precisely as a euphemism for people like himself. They know that their old arguments have been cottoned on to.

I'm reluctant to bring this up but... a lot of the talk about 'globalists' being a by-word for Jews came from their use of the triple parentheses around the word. But only the slowest of them still use those. My point being that they always seek out euphemistic terms for their targets. They're careful to play into peoples' fears just enough to give themselves plausible deniability.
The one thing they can't do, however, is change the core of the arguments; Jews are not 'us', they want to destroy 'us', they want to overthrow 'us', they want to outbreed 'us'. The prejudice is as old as the hills, just the terminology has changed.

Hell, even today there's still debates over whether Jewish people are 'white'. Which just further demonstrates how meaningless the term is.

If you're expecting them to, like the Nazis, come straight out and start talking about how Jewish people are the cause of all our ills... that's being a little naive. They've learned from that past. Antisemitism was rife in Europe at the time and so it was fair-game to talk about Jewish people like that but nowadays they have to be careful.

But there are certain targets that they can still be open about. That prejudice against is seen as acceptable.