Hmm.. without wanting to come across as pedantic (which I probably am in any case) and ignorant of the miniutae of history as it's not my academic area of specialty, but wasn't the American revolution - the 1776 Declaration of Independence etc. and the 1781-83 war BEFORE the French revolution of 1789-94? So in fact it should be posited that the French revolution was in fact inspired by the American one?
Either way, both were direct wellsprings of the Age of Enlightenment, - the concept of a secular Republic "for the people, by the people" / "liberty, fraternity, equality" - a cultural phenomenon that has never taken place in Islamic societies.
Ahh.. yes...? I'd kinda agree, except I've encountered quite a few university students in pubs (since I returned to Ireland) with bizarre notions, because they're members of this group or another. The crap that started in the US has made itself known in Irish and European universities. Not to the same extent, and most people would be as you suggested in not really caring.. but there's still many with utterly retarded notions of how the world works, or how it should work.
That's not coming from the top.. it's coming from the side-lines. And I don't even mean the traditional nutjob feminist groups or the race theory activists, but people with similar attitudes to DaCor, or Bubbly. Adamant in what they believe to be true, but utterly unable to defend their position, but repeating it nonetheless until people give up countering it. There's a certain movement that relates to immigration, minority rights, etc.. usually people who hate their own ethnicity or feel some guilt over being born into good circumstances.
The madness too about the freedom to speak freely or whatever, is that in normal Irish social groups, in my experience at least, is that you can say what you want, and people will say little. It's not that they even agree with you, it's that they simply don't care, and they certainly won't hold your views against you, not in the way that hardcore left wing types will. And I'd say that that's likely true in many nations, so this quashing of debate, comes solely from the top and doesn't reflect what actually happens in many social circles. The media and social media types have grabbed the reigns and narrowed what we're allowed to hear based on their own will, which leaves it to people on the ground to try and inform people on things that they haven't even heard, because our media doesn't do their job, and that's a lot of work for the people on the ground, work they shouldn't have to do in a free society.
Reminds me of Opus Dei TBH. They have massive power in their preferred areas. However, I get what you're saying. I'd say it's more along the lines of the ideologically conditioned groups, such as Marxists, or well.. hard-line feminists. There's an approved creed, and everything else needs to be torn down and destroyed, because it doesn't agree with their perceived/accepted reality.
As for Mao, in a way, western nations are going through their own Cultural Revolution, with the same amount of excesses, and brutality in destroying what is not acceptable. There's a remarkable amount of intolerance of others opinions in western countries these days, which is amusing since it's usually the ones talking about freedom that want to shutdown others viewpoints.
I'd argue that even for cult like behavior, there's an extremism on that side that's not comparable to most cults. When we think of cults, we think of isolated groups who don't have much societal sway, but we can't say that about them, as they've amassed more power than most cults could ever hope for. They know they have said power too, hence why they lash out so much at any dissent. There's a decent amount of them, who would honestly have their enemies disappear if they had their way, as even one enemy to them is a risk to their power, a risk that can't be taken. "Cancel culture" is a mild manifestation of just that, if it was taken to the extreme your life would be cancelled too, much in the way that it was for many dissenters in the Soviet Union or Mao's China. If anything it would be worse than those examples, because those examples were largely just a few nations, whereas the new wave of madness has consumed nearly every Western nation.
The Left have turned their policies into a religion if not full on cult. From Global Warming, to LGBT matters to even Covid. The irony is that many of these people arrogantly claim that they're too smart for religion.
He wants some of that sweet European multiculturalism. Or maybe he wants carbon neutral immigrants rather than native carbon positive Africans.
More likely that, with 98.8% of the vote, Kagame is looking to diversify his personal income streams so that he can get that over 99% at the next election. It ain't cheap to get that share of the vote
You'd have to wonder whats in it for Rwanda seeing as they are suddenly willing to become the reception center for countries
They just realized that their gene pool needs some diversity.
Their plans pre-date BoJo's by a considerable amount of time. Biggest delay for them had been the fact that no country wanted to act as their reception center. Looks like that has changed as Rwanda have stepped up.
I see the Danes are looking to send migrants to Rwanda also. They've obviously had enough now.
One could say the Danes are looking to deflect attention from Boris Johnson. But then that would sound like a fanciful conspiracy theory.
It's also why the negatives are glossed over, dismissed, and generally ignored. The cost of multiculturalism is ignored in favour of drooling over very vague benefits.
There is no argument over it because logic and reasonable discussion aren't the objective. The aim is that others simply accept what is stated. Don't question. Believe that it will be true.
It's another religion.
Is that your idea of logic and reasonable discussion? Silly rhetoric that’s just as well ignored because it’s not worth entertaining. Don’t question the ridiculous narratives that you’ve been trying to promote, just listen and believe.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that if you’re going to deprive anyone else of the same rights as yourself, that you would at least present compelling evidence of any perceived wrongdoing in order to justify your actions. It’s not good enough to simply suggest that your actions are being taken with the aim of achieving some higher moral purpose, which it certainly appears serves your own interests above everyone else’s.
I’m genuinely not following you. The idea clearly isn’t acceptable to you. The question related to the benefits of diversity, and I gave one of the benefits of diversity in terms of genetics. I didn’t think there was any argument about polluting anyone else’s gene pool, that’s just bad manners.
Now here is the perfect example of the complete non argument in favour of the politic of physical migration multiculturalism. It's the debate equivalent of Nothing to see here, no need to debate it at all, it just is. AKA the "arguments" are slimmer than a Parisien catwalk model and well you know it. That's how empty and wishy washy this philosophy and politic is.
The rest of your post I’m thinking we could probably argue back and forth all day, it’s not as though I don’t see any potential conflicts or issues, of course I do, but I don’t see them as being any different from conflicts and issues which already exist in Irish society. It’s not that I’m arguing that we should “import more” conflicts and issues, the reason I don’t see it that way is because I know that everyone is held to the same standards in Irish society already.
That’s why I’m not buying into the idea of portraying any particular group of people as being of the one mindset on the basis of any particular characteristics, let alone the idea that Irish society has anything new to fear that doesn’t already exist and has existed in Irish society long before finger pointing at immigrants was a thing.
It is racist to suggest that white Europeans need non-white non-European genes added into their gene pool, so I replied with a more bluntly racist joke. So my question is 100% honest, why is it acceptable to suggest that we need new genes, or the influx of these genes will benefit us in any way?
And of course you noted that this only ever goes one way. The very notion that any African or Asian or Middle Eastern nation and culture could be "improved" culturally and (oh oh) genetically by an influx of White, liberal, culturally "christian" Europeans would have the vast majority of dyed in the wool multiculturalists feeling faint at the very thoughts of it, followed by much gnashing of teeth around colonialism.
The worst thing that they need to accept is that this actually have happened. In places where before the white Christian man they were handling spears with their micks hanging out now they have roads, cars and universities. But being honest about the past is acceptable only when we're honest about the bad things the white man did, the good influence and development needs to be forgotten.
You won't ever hear about toxic feminity and how women (mothers, sisters, girlfriends, ex-wives) might negatively affect the development of men in society though. As usual, this is about casting blame, without acknowledging all the factors involved, because there is no interest in resolving problems in society.. it's about deferring them, and perhaps exercising a wee bit of control, by elevating one group over the other.
They wouldn't discuss the case, but they sure as hell would and have discussed the apparently deep seated "toxic masculinity" within the Irish male psyche when such cases were before the courts.
See now I’m not sure that’s even an honest question because it’s coming off the back of the idea that you were joking the first time. In any case, I don’t think any sort of attempting to associate behaviour with biology stands up to scrutiny. I think you’re far smarter than the idea that you don’t understand the difference between colonialism and immigration. That’s why I don’t think it’s a question that warrants any kind of serious consideration - I’m thinking you could only be joking 🤨
Well that is one of those questions isn' it... Diversity is our strength!! if it's diversity coming to White, liberal, culturally "christian" Europe, but only if it's not other White liberal, culturally christian Europeans making it diverse. For the multiculturalists with their thobbing horn for the exotic that won't be nearly enough. It's a case of the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice for them. It's a politic with a bad case of "Jungle Fever" and a patronising one with it.
Both the Right On and the Right wing are positively obsessed with race and again the darker the skin the more they get wound up. The Right wing are convinced they're going to be replaced by the "darkies", even though the vast majority of inward migration to Ireland have been "palefaces". If they're convinced they're going to be replaced they'd be far beter off learning Polish than Igbo to fit in. Hell, we've probably got more Ukrainians since February than Nigerians in the last twenty five years.
On the Right On side we have things Irish Black History month. A whole month for a blink and you'd miss it history in Ireland, one that could be covered by a fast talker in half an hour. The poor oul Poles who outnumber Africans fourfold don't even get a day, neither do the tens of thousands of French, or Spaniards and we'd have a lot more history and cultural links with them.
Well toxic masculinity possibly might have something to do with rape crimes?
And no, if the accused was Irish you wouldn't see the press discussing the case then either, but you know that and as usual just want to pretend it's something other then what it is.
Funny that the same sensible press and the usual suspects will talk about "toxic masculinity" to beat the band without mentioning names when there are high profile rape cases before the courts. And I'd bet the farm that if the accused involved had been named Liam O'Murchu they'd be doing the same.
Fair enough, although I wonder why wasn't the gene pool argument the one that caught your attention first - why is it acceptable to be racist, or should I say, genist, against the white Irish or white Europeans? Why are only the white European gene pools in need of improvement? Why is it bad colonialism when we go there, and why is it diversity enrichment when they come here? So many questions, so few honest answers :)
Funny that
It gives you a laugh, but it never seems to garner an answer.
The only reason I didn’t realise you were joking is because it wasn’t obvious, given some of the posts that have been made for serious consideration in this thread already 😂
It’s not so empty that it can be so easily dismissed, which is the same thing that’s been done throughout the thread in relation to both multiculturalism and immigration - ask for the positives, when the positives are given, point out that they’re of no significance whatsoever compared to the potential negative consequences of an imagined mass invasion of immigrants who are portrayed as being of a hive mindset.
I'm afraid that is very easily dismissed, because it has pretty much zero reality or evidence in science or human genetics. It can't be a positive if there is zero evidence of its effect and if one takes the position that it has an effect, then it can just as easily argued that it can bring negatives too, like previously rare in a population genetic conditions and illnesses and not just in the native populations. One example is the incidence of rickets and vitamin D defiencies in BAMR populations in the UK.
Sure the American revolution was inspired by the French, but that’s using a different argument to dismiss the idea that we imported much of our cultural cues from the US. I’m not suggesting we didn’t import anything in terms of our culture from England and Rome, we did obviously. The point I was making is that we developed very differently to the rest of Europe because we’re on the periphery of Europe.
Again this is a mix of nonsense, half truths and bias along dubious historical facts. One could have argued that being on the edge of Europe in the case of not being part of the Roman Empire had an effect, but even here there was some cross polinisation and after Rome fell, one of the few places in Europe that kept a spark of that classical world alive was in Ireland and then exported much of it back into what had once been that empire. Never mind the rest of Europe who never fell under that influence. Did Sweden, Norway develop "very differently to the rest of Europe"? Of course not. The Vikings came and then the Normans which brought the country ino their world and wider Western Europe. Then we became part of Britain which was hardly on the periphery of Europe or the world for that matter. For a time it was central to both.
Both multiculturalism and immigration are inevitable and as much as some people may want to, it’s just not possible to control either phenomenon to the degree they would want to, let alone does it do anything to promote their own ideas of what being Irish mean or what ideas they mean by culture.
Of course it's possible and it wasn't inevitable. About the only nations with mass movements of peoples before the post war world and 20th century were European colonies that were built on the mass movement of peoples, or areas of actual physical invasion. That degree of demographic shift across much of Western Europe has never occurred before in European history. Ireland has only had to deal with this politic in the last 20 odd years. Odd that it wasn't "inevitable" beforehand. If Ireland didn't have the give birth for passports loophole in the 90's and early 00's a huge proportion of the non EU migrants here quite simply wouldn't be. When we close that loophole the numbers dropped and when we applied the criterias of asylum seekers the vast majority, nearly 100% of those coming here from most of the nations that came in the 90's and early 00's were refused entry because they were chancers. And we're already seeing the exact same trends every single other "multicultural" nation in Europe has seen before us.
None of that is arguing the case in favour either multiculturalism or immigration because I don’t think there’s any need to.
😂😅🤣😂😅🤣😂😅🤣😅😂
That always gives me a good laugh
It is obviously a joke, the only reply that this argument is worthy of - as you rightly put it, eugenics is horrible stuff and the gene pool that needs improvement argument also belongs there.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)