You never met my old aunt Lena the nun.
The mistake people make with Islam is that the majority think of it as just a "Religion" with the same definition of any other "Religion", but it's more. Much more, Islam controls every facet of a practicing Muslims life,, from the time he wakes up, until he / she goes to sleep again. And this is what separates it from other Religions, especially where Sharia law is in play.
RE. "The all vote FF because their Parents did" I'm not so sure about that being the case as much nowadays, if the results of the last GE are anything to go by. Lots of the "old reliable's" took 4th, 5th, 6'th and 7th. counts to get in. And for sure, no one in FFG are looking forward to the next GE, when ever it will be held. The times they are a changing.
You can find them just about anywhere in Ireland, although in my experience, they're far more likely to be represented in the rural areas. I have a variety of family members who would fall into this kind of hardline religious grouping, and they're not supportive even slightly of anything that deviates from traditional Ireland and the values/beliefs of the RCC.
Still.... they all vote FF.. because they've always done so, just as their parents did. This is what you'll find with the traditional types... they won't be out voting for the new parties, but will stick to the parties they've previously voted for.. and that's often dependent on traditional geographical loyalty.
Which is why all these claims about the far right are such a joke. Any support that they're likely to get will be coming from our young people, and those middle aged, who have become so dissatisfied with the mainstream parties. Even then, though, the numbers are likely to be low considering the support that SF receives. There would need to be a drastic change to how people view the parties for "the far right" to gain any kind of traction, and even then, I seriously doubt that many of the Irish electorate would be able to stomach such a stance, at least one that reflected the viewpoints of the far right abroad...
Where do you find these hardcore Irish Catholics? I'm not jesting, I'm completely serious. I know they exist, but I've rarely meet one in my life. Even most older Catholics that I know aren't very strict; they often support gays rights and abortion.
Yes and you are always championing the members of the largest growing right wing movement in this country, muslims.
Anyone that seriously analyses muslims that take their religion anyway seriously can only come to one conclusion that they are extremely right wing in social outlook.
Of course you will do your usual shytetalk about conservative catholics, but yet totally ignore how much very conservative catholics have in common with even moderate muslims.
Even worse islam has the more conservative fundamentalist adherents, which is probably fastest growing branch of islam over recent decades, that would be akin to catholics in 14th century Spain rather than Justin Barrett and his ilk.
And please don't give us some shyte about how there are no real fundamentalist muslims in Ireland when the muslim brotherhood have been based in Clonskeagh for years.
Perhaps Aontu ?
My mother is socially right but very left economically , kind of person who used to vote FF , she votes for Aontu now
Economically they may be centre or centre-right at a push but socially they are very liberal.
FF, FG, Labour, the Greens and (post 1994) SF are all right wing parties in that they support the neo-liberal pro-big business capitalist system. The differences between them are simply hair splitting. It is true that there are currently no significant mainstream conservative traditionalist anti-multicultural parties in the ROI. There is certainly nothing for the section of the electorate who are left of centre economic issues and traditionalist on social issues.
Ahh well, I've previously spoken about the dilution of Irish culture, and I'm not going to rehash those points again. In this case, i was taking my line from others posts, and using that as the basis for a response.
What are they integrating into? Irish people are thin on the ground in a lot of circles in Dublin
Times have changed. With the importance and accessibility of social media, and other technologies, there's little pressure on anyone to integrate anymore, never mind, that you can find shops run by your cultural/national group, and avoid Irish people altogether.
It's not that hard. I did it in China for years until I made a serious effort to pick up the language and mingle with others... however, I know plenty of people who have lived there for years, and haven't done much beyond their immediate circle of friends. And that's in a country that's more difficult/intolerant towards foreigners. For immigrants in Ireland, it would be quite easy to avoid integrating if they wanted their lives to be that way.
I absolutely agree with this. When numbers are small, the new arrivals are so outnumbered that they have no choice but to integrate and become part of the new culture.
However when large groups arrive, they tend to cluster together and form parallel societies. Like happens in the North of England in old mill towns in Lancashire/Yorkshire - Bradford, Rotherham, Rochdale etc.
I don’t need to ask myself that question at all, because I know already that the answer is that Ireland is a representative democracy as opposed to a country like Switzerland for example which is a direct democracy, which would be more like what you imagine Ireland should be, but in in reality it isn’t. That’s why I keep saying that the electorate elects our public representatives whom we imagine will represent our interests. Depending upon your own interests, representative democracy is either a good thing or a bad thing. In your previous posts for example you refer to “the elites” who I took to mean the people with the power to make decisions which affect the direction of Irish society.
It’s also in that context I took it that you were referring to me as the victim of intensive propaganda, which it’s only logical to presume has to be coming from somewhere? If not the people who consider themselves the enlightened, or the elites, then whom? And if that’s not an ideology which promotes mass immigration, then who do you imagine is responsible for this intensive propaganda which you claim I’m a victim of that means I would advocate against the interests of my own nation just so I too could be seen as one of these enlightened elites who I’m still not sure whether or not are responsible for the the intensive propaganda you speak of. It’s condescending on a few different levels tbh, not least because it means that anyone who doesn’t share your perspective is referred to as a victim of intensive propaganda perpetuated by the elites who you’re portraying as taking a dump on their own people. It’s why you so easily dismiss the rest of my post where I explain my motivations, as nonsense, because it doesn’t jig with your narrative you’ve built up in your own head. No matter what I say, it gets filtered through your narrative that I’m a victim of a propaganda campaign by the elites. It just isn’t possible in your mind that I was actually capable of forming an opinion of my own. I’m not the most eloquent in how I express my opinions, it’s true, but that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of thinking for myself, and that in fact I’m not the victim of any intensive propaganda whatsoever. I get it - I’m just reinforcing your point again.
As for the propaganda you are attuned to (since you’re being unnecessarily picky), the CSO report you’re possibly referring to makes no mention of any “fertility crisis”. Why would it when neither of the statistics you quoted were indicative of any sort of crisis? I’m still fairly certain the conclusion of a “fertility crisis” isn’t something you came up with yourself, since I’m assuming you understand what 77% of anything means, and you’re aware that the fertility rate and replacement is calculated as a projected figure from the birth rate in any given year. It’s not so much about maintaining the existing population as it is an indication of the level at which a population would replace itself in the long term (like say over a period of 30 years), without factoring in immigration.
You also made the point about how Government appears to be ignoring this “fertility crisis” and are obsessed with an artificial “housing crisis”, and asked what makes up the demand for houses in a country with less than replacement fertility? Well, the fact that the population is expected to grow is what makes up the demand for housing, and it’s not just immigrants who are creating the demand, it’s the fact that the population will experience a natural growth as life expectancy in Ireland has been steadily increasing for a number of decades now and we have the current situation where people are unable due to the rising costs of living in Ireland, to afford their own homes, and some people are even moving back in with their parents. It’s why I did a double take at the suggestion in the poll earlier that 50% of what was considered representative of the Irish people who were asked the question, imagined that €200 - €300k for a home was considered affordable! The lack of housing is also what’s limiting immigration, with it being difficult to find suitable accommodation at a more reasonable cost in urban areas like Dublin where one third of the country’s population live. The Government plan on addressing this in their 2040 plan -
By 2040 the population of Ireland is expected to reach almost 6 million with a need for 550,000 more homes and the creation of 660,000 additional jobs to achieve and maintain full employment. The need to provide in excess of half-a-million more homes over the period to 2040 corresponds to a long-term trend of 25,000 new homes every year. A higher level of output is needed in the short- to medium-term to respond to the existing deficit that has given rise to the housing crisis.
The continuation of existing patterns of development accentuates the serious risk of economic, social and environmental unsustainability through, for example, placing more distance between where people work and where people live, and increasing energy demand.
The NPF highlights the urgent requirement for a major uplift of the delivery of housing within the existing built-up areas of cities and other urban areas. It has a particular focus on brownfield development, targeting derelict and vacant sites that may have been developed before but have fallen into disuse.
I’m assuming that when you refer to how bad the initial arguments were, you weren’t referring to the fair amount of odd assertions in your own previous posts which I attributed to your being attuned to propaganda which supported your already held beliefs about the effects of mass immigration, multiculturalism and so on, based upon evidence of it’s apparent failure in other countries which are very different societies by comparison to Irish society. It’s precisely for this reason that Sinn Fein are gaining in popularity by portraying themselves as “the party of the people” offering a change from “the elites” who people feel don’t represent their individual interests, even though Sinn Fein are decidedly pro-immigration -
Sinn Fein is also distinct from other populists on immigration. For right-wing populists, immigration dilutes the national character and threatens the inherited culture of a society—even left-wing populists tend to oppose immigration as a way of protecting domestic jobs. But Sinn Fein is decidedly pro-immigration; it regularly makes its progressive and multicultural views known, and anti-immigration rhetoric has never formed part of the party narrative, even when weighed against its strong adherence to Irish nationalism.
Anyone who believes their nonsense propaganda and votes accordingly isn’t a victim, they’ve willingly chosen of their own free will to stick two fingers up to “the establishment”, thinking that the people they elected to represent them, have their individual interests in mind.
The progressives like all zealots require a bogeyman.
Far left loonies like PPP and Socialist Party went as far as taking seats in the Dail so maybe some balance might be beneficial.
My view on multiculturalism is that the more who come here the less they'll integrate.
If the tables were turned, at best we would be living under the equivalent of a penal law system, at worst would be enslaved(in all but name), just like the poor lads from poor countries building the massive stadiums in Qatar. Every local family would have an Irish domestic servant to use and abuse instead of the current filipino or Ethiopian
What's not credible? That I know people from other countries and lived overseas?
did you not make friends 😞
Thats not why they went. Invading places for their own use under the cover of bringing freedom.
Point is its not all one way. We sent armed criminals.
People moving to the west are the working classes taking advantage like any of us would in their position. And have done historically and still do. We have illegal immigrants in the states and Australia.
Well, I'm glad you acknowledge the mass migration policy of European governments has been made without the support of the various European peoples - indeed in the face of clear opposition - but the next question you need to ask yourself is why such policy is made, if Europe is democratic? If Europeans are against mass migration, if migrants are not welcome - then why do European governments create the conditions for mass migration?
Mass migration fails because mass migration as a rule it can only fail from the perspective of the indigenous people. Migration can be assimilated. Mass migration - by definition - cannot. Great cities with incredible cultural value and GDP output fuelled entirely by migrants and their descendants may now exist throughout America where once there was nothing but simple huts or nothing at all, but that is a cold comfort to the indigenous Americans who can only hang on to the shadows of their former traditions, culture and homelands in reservations.
I never accused you of being the victim of an enlightened ideology. I said you were the victim of intensive propaganda, which tells you that advocating for high risk, dangerous and illogical policies against the interests of your own nation demonstrates you are enlightened and high status. That you were so confused as to summarise this statement as me accusing you of being the victim of an enlightened ideology just reinforces my point. As for the propaganda I draw my conclusions from - it is a CSO report.
The rest of your post is meandering nonsense which can be best judged by how badly wrong the initial arguments were.
More globalism than imperialism. 19th century imperialists were not fighting for Afghan girls to have access to liberal educations or teaching the population that toilets were actually high art. British involvement in Afghanistan in the 21st century and Afghanistan in the 19th century was both times for the interests, benefit and morality of the British elite, and at the bloody cost of the British lower classes who lost lives and limbs in conflicts that did not and could not ever benefit them.
This is what I meant - mass migration/globalism is not a balancing of the books for imperialism. It is a simple continuation of the same old story. The elites continue to reap the benefits. The lower orders continue to bear the costs.
Do you honestly think said people would help us if we were in need?
I meant to come back to come back to this earlier than by now, but honestly I’d been thinking about it and I still can’t get my head around your thinking at all. Between yourself and @Sand you speak of “the enlightened ones”, but there’s nothing particularly enlightened about treating people as equals on the basis that we’re all human beings. It really doesn’t get any more basic than that. Our freedoms and rights didn’t come about through fighting, they came about through dialogues and discussions that were the basis of both Western and Christian philosophy. It’s often a mistaken belief that civil law was borne of religion, but it was actually the other way round. In Ireland you’ll probably have heard of Brehon law, which predates Christianity, and would be considered progressive even by todays standards. You asked how Ireland came about? That’s how. No force involved or any of the rest of it -
I know you said you have enough cop on that you imagine you could reason with an IRA or a Basque terrorist where you couldn’t reason with an Islamic terrorist, but they wouldn’t be engaging in terrorism if they could be reasoned with, so I’m a bit lost as to why you’d even make the distinction, as though you imagine someone willing to kill for an ideology would spare you on the basis that you’re a sound skin really, g’wan, you get a pass… as though they could possibly be placated!
I’m honestly just stumped as to how you could possibly think such a thing, let alone the idea of placating terrorists, while at the same time condemning people you see as pissing in the tent. I’m trying to put it all together and it just makes no sense. The fact that you’d piss your pants and kiss arse while at the same time complaining about people who won’t stand with you suggests that I would be foolish to imagine I, or anyone for that matter, could possibly trust you to provide protection.
I’m fortunate enough that I don’t need your protection. I’m also not in the habit of placating or negotiating with terrorists in any circumstances, though I sincerely doubt it would ever come to that. That’s not arrogance, it’s confidence, as opposed to being controlled by paranoia and fear that I would ever need to defend myself against an invented enemy. Tbh mate you just sound like a fella that’s spoiling for a fight, and anyone will do, doesn’t matter whether they’re Irish or foreign or anything else, because your conception of a “way of life” that has to be defended ultimately by force is only an excuse to start a fight. It bears no relation to any way of life I’ve ever lived or the concept of a “way of life” I would wish on anyone.
Of course they would be allowed immigrate to the countries they immigrated to, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether they’re welcome or not. I don’t have to pick one when you’ve already pointed out that both statements can be true - Governments do indeed make unpopular decisions, and the people who elected them will often feel as though their individual interests aren’t being served.
Mass immigration has been a dismal failure in other European countries not because of European Governments permitting mass immigration. It’s been a dismal failure because the people who elected Governments were just as resentful of actually having to live up to their ideals as everyone else. It’s easy be idealistic if your ideals are never actually challenged.
You’re maintaining that I’m somehow the “victim” of some enlightened ideology (I tried to think of any occasion before I’d been accused of being enlightened, couldn’t think of any tbh 🤔), but I’m fairly certain you didn’t come up with that “fertility crisis” idea all by yourself. It’s undoubtedly the product of whatever propaganda you’re attuned to, though I don’t buy the notion of a housing crisis either.
My argument against the idea of being against multiculturalism or mass immigration is a pretty simple one that’s as old as humanity itself - I see it as a moral obligation to provide assistance to people in need. We have plenty, and there’s no doubt there’s plenty of room for plenty more people in Irish society. I just don’t make any distinction between the indigenous population as you put it, and the non-indigenous population. It doesn’t make anyone any less Irish to be charitable.
My way of thinking is rather the opposite of what you’re suggesting - that I place no value on Irish people or their future. In terms of how I raised my own child for example, I’ve always taught him the value of giving, over hoarding and assuming the worst in people. It’s not a risk when he has so much that it would’t hurt him in the slightest to give to other people who have nothing, and it’s neither dangerous nor illogical - it’s how a society flourishes, as opposed to the idea of hoarding something for fear of being deprived of anything.
That’s not to say I don’t get what you’re afraid of, I do - the Irish native indigenous population being in a minority in their own homeland. It strikes me as somewhat unusual then that given you’re of that particular belief, you wouldn’t be front and centre defending and supporting the decisions of the few Irish women who are bringing up the numbers of Irish natives, so to speak 😏
It’s as though your concerns for the Irish indigenous population only come up when they’re a useful argument against mass immigration, those natives and indigenous population who agree with your ideas at least, which I don’t imagine exist in any great numbers, certainly not in sufficient numbers to present a credible threat to the Irish society you’re so keen to protect while condemning Irish people at the same time for not adhering to your ideals for Irish society.
For balance we must mention western forces raping and murdering their way through the middle east.
What happened to Afghanistan was a colluded form of imperialism.
Re: What goes around, comes around...
Imperialism has certainly been a poisoned chalice, but it hasn't been an trade off with mass migration/globalism. Mass migration is a policy - not an inevitable consequence or a law of nature. At its height, imperialism benefitted the elites at the expense of the lower classes who suffered most, and gained least as minimum wage footsoldiers and functionaries. In the present day, imperialism has been made obsolete by globalism, but it is still the elites who benefit and the lower classes who suffer most - the British schoolgirls who were targeted, tormented and raped by the imperial leftovers were not the daughters of the UK elite. Imperialism made sense for the UK/French/Belgian elites then. Globalism and mass migration makes sense for the UK/French/Belgian elites now. It is chosen policy, not a morality tale.
But it is true to say that post-imperialist European countries have been left most vulnerable to mass migration. Ideologically, the British and French find it hardest to identify their interests of their own people as being separate to the interests of the long dead empires. Which leads them to some really dumb conclusions, such as an Englishman thinking he has more in common with an Indian or a Frenchman believing the same of an African than they do with each other. To their mutual detriment.
Eric Zemmour at a superficial level seems a sensible option for the French. But surely its telling of how things have gone in France - and by extension Europe - that the saviour of the French people, the only one willing to defend them, is an ethnic North African? Is no ethnic French person willing or able to speak in their own defence and that of their children? Or must migrants do the jobs the French are unwilling to do themselves?
Well, a lot of what he goes on about is grounded in fact.
There really are “territoires perdus de la république”, where there indeed are thousands of cars burnt to a cinder on New Year’s eve for the better part of thirty years now. The banlieues of many majorcities have progressively been taken over not only by a disturbing populace, but to gangsters that have become top apparatchiks of council governments. The latter have hardened the attitudes of the anti-social, anti-republican elements. The council jobs were handed by mayors in very weird tractations meant to buy the peace. France is in a very awkward juncture.
My son had a Belgian girlfriend visit us last month who told us that she doesn’t feel like she is living in “her” country anymore. She works as a social worker with problem immigrant youth, and so is rather more aware of the situation.
Then, a week later, I listened to a two-part series on France Culture radio channel about Belgium’s King Léopold’s personal empire in the Congo. There was a segment about how the native Congolese were punished for not harvesting enough rubber from the plantations by severing their hands, or the hands of their children. All this was part of the colonial recipe for a well managed success.
What goes around, comes around, in a very big way.
Their worry is nearly always performative. We know who wields the axes in this country, and they aren't far right, so to me, it's pure deflection: "Look over there at those evil Nazis" who've zero effect on policy, all while their own side is passing devastating legislation left right and centre.
Been reading up about Zemmour recently
Comes across as eminently reasonable for the most part
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/efd3dd9d0bb9a4718dd25ad32419f424.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
