buy irish..employ irish

The Corinthian wrote:

This is not a good thing as cultures do need to change and evolve, just like everything else

I've never said that our culture shouldn't change. I want our culture to continue to change and to adapt to the modern world and to be open to the best that the rest of the world has to offer. Nationalism by its nature is a modernising and competitive doctrine that is accepting of change. The Japanese proved that in the 19th century and the Turks and Iranians proved it in the 1920s and 1930s. They modernised their countries and their cultures in the name of nationalism. At the same time they preserved and enhanced their national and ethnic identities.

The Corinthian wrote:

unless you suggest that the provincial priest-ridden culture that existed in Ireland prior to the early nineties was a good thing?

I think that's called a non-sequitur.

I hate priestcraft. I think it was the greatest tragedy of Irish history that the reformation wasn't a success in this country. I have no desire to see a return to the rule of the priests.

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you believe that he and other Irish should not (or be discouraged to) intermarry, and have children, with other ethnic or racial groups?

No, I don't.

The Corinthian wrote:

Would a larger population be a disadvantage in that aforementioned competition then?

I don't think it will be a disadvantage in the competition. I think it will be a disadvantage when it comes to takling some of the energy problems of the next few decades. I don't want to see Europe's population fall further but I don't want to see it rise by too much either. A bigger population will lead to increased energy demands and that will make it much more difficult for us to deal with problems like global warming and peak oil.

The Corinthian wrote:

So's reversing the last three hundred years of industrial and technological advances.

But reversing the last three hundred years of industrial and technological advances would negatively impact our quality of life. Maintaining our current population density on the other hand would be good for the environment and it would not be as likely to impact our quality of life. I think it might even improve our quality of life as it would mean less traffic congestion and less crowded schools, hospitals and prisons.

The Corinthian wrote:

What's your point? All back to the farm?

And another one.

I was questioning whether a low-population density is really such a bad thing. I don't see why we should be all that concerned by the fact that our population is lower today than it was in the 19th century. If you look at the list of countries by population density you'll see that some of the wealthiest countries in the world (the Scandinavian countries, the United States, Canada) have some of the lowest population densities. If there isn't a a strong quality of life argument for increasing our population I would prefer if we didn't.

The Corinthian wrote:

so you can hardly complain that someone is doing to us what we've been doing in other countries to others, can you?

Doing what to us that we've been doing in other countries? Are you suggesting that Irish workers in other countries have been discriminating against foreign workers? Do you have anything to back that up?

The Corinthian wrote:

There's certainly an element of the rip-off republic involved, but when comparing Irish and Northern Irish prices

Don't you mean Republic of Irish and Northern Irish prices?

_Nuno_ wrote:

You speak of national identity and culture, but answer me this, would a black child adopted and raised by Irish parents in Ireland be a part of this national identity of yours?

Absolutely. If they are brought up to identify themselves as Irish and are culturally indistinguishable from the native Irish population then of course they are part of this national identify of mine. I know several non-white Irish people who would fall into that category and who are as racy of the soil as I am myself.

_Nuno_ wrote:

You wouldn't. His skin would be the wrong colour for you, you would just put his CV aside and justify yourself with this crap that you want to preserve your so called Irish culture, and this man, with his dark skin colour, is obviously not a product of the same "culture" as you.

Absolutely not. You're accusing me of being in favour of racial discrimination and I consider that to be a very serious charge. Unless you can quote from anything I've written where I've given any hint that that is what I believe then I would ask you to kindly withdraw it. Old chum!

ThirdFox wrote:

I wonder what O'Morris feels about me, an ethnically Chinese but Irish citizen living in "his" country (I'd like to think it's as much "my" country as his).

I think you're Irish in the same sense that I would be Chinese if I was raised in China.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What long-gone ideals am I trying to preserve in your opinion?

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Oh please.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The world is changing. We can't stop history. Swimming against the tide...

Yourself and the Corinthian are great men for throwing out the old cliches.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's primarily an ethnic identity that is comprised of the believe that the Irish people are a nationality with a shared history and a common culture. That identity is expressed through shared political loyalties and in the value that we attach to our heritage and the importance of preserving that heritage into the future.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I think Paddy is more Irish. Even if he moved up to Dublin and started living the D4 lifestyle like that French bird he would still be just as Irish.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't say that immigrants have to be kept out. We've always taken in immigrants and I see no reason why we can't continue to take in people. I just think the numbers should be a lot lower than they are now. It needs to be better controlled. Mass immigration which leads to our share of the population of our own country fall below 90% of the total in the space of a decade is just too much and is a threat to the long-term survival of an ethnically Irish Ireland. I want us to have to have an immigration system which doesn't see our share of the population fall any further.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't think they have much common with their great-grandparents. I don't think I ever suggested that they did. They're the same nationality and ethnicity as their great-grandparents though.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

To a united and independent Ireland.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

In that case then, no, Paddy is not more Irish. Both are equally Irish.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't believe the Irish people are ethnically pure. I believe we're ethnically homogenous and I believe that that homogeneity is a source of stability that we should value and try to preserve.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yes, and I still think they have a very strong role in Irish identity.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You've misinterpreted the position. When I say that a common culture is an important part of Irish identity I'm not talking about having a common culture with our ancestors, I'm talking a common culture with the people among whom we live today. A man in Sligo has a common Irish culture with a man in Carlow and with a nationalist in Fermanagh. It's the contemporary culture I'm talking about, not the historical culture.

That's not to say that I don't think we should try to preserve things from the past. The GAA and the Irish language are two that I think we should preserve, along with many other things. I think we can easily dispense with much of the historical Irish culture (superstitious priestcraft in particular) though without any great loss to our identity.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It would like asking if a homosexual man is less of a man than a heterosexual man.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They both identify themselves as Irish and they are both of the same Irish ethnic group.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ethnic purity implies a level of unadulturation that it not would be historically accurate to apply to the Irish population or to any other population. Homogeneity on the other hand implies a very high level of commonality that it would be accurate to apply to the Irish population and much more so than most other populations. The Irish population is like an extended family. There may be minor differences between us but they're Imperceptible to the naked eye.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The United States might be stable politically but I would be surprised if it's any more stable than a nation that was more ethnically homogenous. Can you give an example of an ethnically homogenous nation that is less stable than America?

Don't forget as well that America is a very violent country and that much of the inner-city violence is not unrelated to the fact that America's urban population is very "diverse".

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well now you could hardly claim that Paddy and Aurelie are typical Irish people. I would be surprised if you'd find more than a dozen people in the entire country who would fit the stereotypes you've given above.

Most Irish people would be general middle of the road type of people like yourself and myself and Ray Darcy.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Of course we were, I'm just saying the GAA is one of the things that has survived from our history and it's something that therefore unites us with previous generations of Irishmen.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's not Gaelic, it's Irish. And it's not "Irish", it's Irish.

Yes, we were Irish long after the Irish language became a minority language. We did speak Irish for much of our history as a people though. It's the language that the Irish monks spoke when they went out and educated the Europeans during the Dark Ages.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because they're just two of the many things that distinguish as a people and that are positive and good for us. Surely the GAA is a good thing and is worth our efforts to preserve it?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As long as she renounces Fine Gael and all its works, I believe shes one of us.

It seems there is an element of truth to the claims about the "Irish need not apply" signs on Polish building sites. According to this article in the Irish Independent, the signs have been noticed on a few sites.

Of course they're used to this sort of thing over in that country. They just need to tipp-ex out "Jews" from the old signs.

another effect of irish not having much kids aswell is it has left our population ageing,so to stop people leaching off the gov,they are running adverts telling you to take out a pension-although i never hear of a judge,polictition,or any other of them in the pillars of society taking out a private pension

O'Morris wrote: »

I'd rather live in an Ireland of 3 million in which the ethnic Irish are 95% of the total population than live in an island of 12 million in which the ethnic Irish are only 48% of the total

How sad. Mixing a racist view (and it is a racist view. You are basing your argument on 'race' hence the use of the word 'ethnic') with scaremongering of the 'Millions of em' numbers.
May all your neighbours be Khans, Singhs and Bruce MacKenzies :rolleyes:

O'Morris wrote: »

I would prefer "encouraged" rather than "forced". Patriotic people like myself consider it our duty to have big families with ethnic Irish women to keep the flame of the gael burning into the 22nd

Methinks you're on the wrong forum.
The Stormfront nutjobs are that-a-way

---

>

Went through a few threads, as well as some posts in this one and I have to say I am just getting a bit pis..ed off. Wherever "immigration" thread appears to be general thread about immigration, sooner or later my favourite word comes up "Polish", Poles", "Poland".

As we all know in Ireland there is ABSOLUTELY no people from:

Slovakia (who I meet actually more often than Poles)
Lithuania
Hungary
Latwia
Germany
France
Spain
Italy

and guest stars in really "SMALL" numbers:

Russia
Algier
Pakistan
India
Nigeria
Libera
Zimbabwe
Somalia
China

Won't even mention your beloved English. Americans are not immigrants, cuz most of them are Irish anyway - thats just for people with short-term memory

=========

No, only Poles are taking yeer jobs, only Poles cause car accidents, only Poles brough all the 7 plaques to your "always-rich and developed" country, and - obviously - only Poles are living from "your" social walfare.

I am fuc...ing sick of reading this crap.

Do you guys really think I should start my own crusade against my local Spar (all staff from India/Pakistan) and Centra (all staff from India/Pakistan) and Londis (all staff from China)? According to some of you, maybe europeans from the EU should be entitled to get those jobs in a first place? Or maybe that's fine - and there is nothing wrong with those jobs, and none of poor Irish families need them, until there are no Poles employed?

O'Morris wrote: »

Nationalism by its nature is a modernising and competitive doctrine that is accepting of change. The Japanese proved that in the 19th century and the Turks and Iranians proved it in the 1920s and 1930s. They modernised their countries and their cultures in the name of nationalism. At the same time they preserved and enhanced their national and ethnic identities.

Nationalism is not by its nature is a modernising and competitive doctrine that is accepting of change - it may accept technological advancement in the interests of self preservation, but it's need to 'preserve' national and ethnic identity rejects change by definition. This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing, only slavishly following it.

As for your historical examples - the same nationalism that allowed the Japanese to modernise in the 19th century was that which pushed them into aggressive militancy that was their undoing in the 20th. As for the Turks, their modernisation specifically suppressed much of their traditions and ethnic identity. All of which ignores the nationalism that rejected any change, most notably - and disastrously - in the case of 19th century China.

I think that's called a non-sequitur.

I hate priestcraft. I think it was the greatest tragedy of Irish history that the reformation wasn't a success in this country. I have no desire to see a return to the rule of the priests.

It's not a non-sequitur, it is simply following the logic of the arguments you've given to their natural conclusion. The provincial, priest-ridden, mindset was part of our traditions and ethnic identity that you claimed you wish to protect - like it or not. If you are now choosing to discard some of those, then you need to explain which and why.

No, I don't.

Unfortunately, this does not stack up with your later comment:

O'Morris wrote: »

I would prefer "encouraged" rather than "forced". Patriotic people like myself consider it our duty to have big families with ethnic Irish women to keep the flame of the gael burning into the 22nd. In a hundred years from now there will be a lot more people with my y chromosome running around the place than there will be people with your y chromosome.

Either you want to see more racially (and bringing genetics into it makes it a racial aim) pure Irish or you don't. Claiming that you would not discourage non-pure Irish simply wash, as you have already admitted that you want to encourage the other and you cannot have a cohesive policy of one without the other - as encouraging something will always de facto discourage the alternative.

I don't think it will be a disadvantage in the competition. I think it will be a disadvantage when it comes to takling some of the energy problems of the next few decades. I don't want to see Europe's population fall further but I don't want to see it rise by too much either. A bigger population will lead to increased energy demands and that will make it much more difficult for us to deal with problems like global warming and peak oil.

A larger population also gives us greater political and economic influence to secure resources. Or had you considered that if resources really did become scarce, that the unit cost would magically be lower for us? Or that we would have a greater chance of securing them because we needed less? You logic is fundamentally flawed.

But reversing the last three hundred years of industrial and technological advances would negatively impact our quality of life. Maintaining our current population density on the other hand would be good for the environment and it would not be as likely to impact our quality of life. I think it might even improve our quality of life as it would mean less traffic congestion and less crowded schools, hospitals and prisons.

Then I suggest that you encourage everyone not to have children, regardless of their y-chromosomes - if that is what you're really worried about...

If you look at the list of countries by population density you'll see that some of the wealthiest countries in the world (the Scandinavian countries, the United States, Canada) have some of the lowest population densities. If there isn't a a strong quality of life argument for increasing our population I would prefer if we didn't.

Meanwhile the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Germany and the UK all have high population densities and have as high, if not higher, quality of life. Thus your argument does not stand up.

Doing what to us that we've been doing in other countries? Are you suggesting that Irish workers in other countries have been discriminating against foreign workers? Do you have anything to back that up?

A good friend of mine worked on the building sites in England during the early nineties. Jobs were not plentiful at the time, so when they turned up looking for work, they foreman asked who was Irish and they got preference for the jobs. Of course, the so-called Murfia in the UK construction industry was no secret back then.

Absolutely. If they are brought up to identify themselves as Irish and are culturally indistinguishable from the native Irish population then of course they are part of this national identify of mine. I know several non-white Irish people who would fall into that category and who are as racy of the soil as I am myself.

How do you reconcile this with your racialist definition of ethnicity? Without that all-important (to you) y-chromosome, are they really as Irish?

Absolutely not. You're accusing me of being in favour of racial discrimination and I consider that to be a very serious charge. Unless you can quote from anything I've written where I've given any hint that that is what I believe then I would ask you to kindly withdraw it.

You openly admit to a genetic preference in terms of national identity. This is, by definition, a racialist viewpoint.

Old chum!

Spare me your affectations. We're not 'chums' and you're not English.

I think you're Irish in the same sense that I would be Chinese if I was raised in China.

Nice non-answer. Leaves the question open of whether you would consider ThirdFox as Irish as a naturally born Irishman, or yourself (brought up in China) as Chinese as a naturally born Chinaman, which given your promotion genetic identity, would indicate not.

The more I read of O'Morris, the more that it is becoming clear that there is a racialist agenda there. The promotion of genetic background is racialist - pure and simple - there is no conceivable other reason for introducing such an aim.

"deeeyy toooook ouuur jobs!"

:rolleyes:

"quick get on the pile!!"

:P




anyways as an employer, director and main slave of own company, i can tell you its very hard to find employees,

and im not talking about restaurant work here, im talking about people with a computing/engineering degree, programming experience, who know *nix, everything web tech related and have good communication skills (someone like this http://www.boards.ie/jobs/systems_administrator_(unix).php )


i graduated from certain galway university and noticed that the numbers of people doing engineering degrees like mine are tiny compared to all the people doing artsy fartsy subjects and commerce
where can i find reliable employees when great majority of graduates drank their way thru' college and have skills that are worthless in a modern economy

sigh

sorry i had to rant

djpbarry wrote: »

More importantly, will they be "encouraged" to subject their prospective partners to genetic testing?

they should we don't need more inbred's