The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

Great, we'll be on to talking about how Irish people are distinct because of Haplogroup B soon and how that can't be found anywhere else in the world apparently.

Well, apart from Niger, Nigeria, Chad and parts of the middle east.

Just don't mention their newest hero revealing the alt-right's feelings about Irish people:


Like I said, if the alt-right ever came to power, the Irish won't be included on top of their hierarchy.

midnight city

FatHeadFred wrote: »

Completely wrong. Being born here to non Irish parents means you're not Irish.

Also, are you denying that the Irish are a distinct group?

If they are born and raised in Ireland with an Irish accent and all they ever knew was Ireland. How can you say they aren't Irish. What are they then?

I have no problem recognising them as Irish and I would be someone on the right politically.

FatHeadFred

They're not qualified for citizenship at birth and aren't of Irish descent. They're neither ethnically Irish nor Irish citizens.

They're not Irish. Same way if two Irish people move to China and have a kid there,the baby wouldn't be Chinese!!

Billy86

FatHeadFred wrote: »

Black people are overly represented in crime in London.



And being born in Ireland doesn't make you Irish. I suggest people read our citizenship laws.

I think you'll find that poor people are overly represented in crime in London and in general. If it were black people for the sake of being black, Dublin would be safer than London regarding violent crime and such - but it's not.

You don't have to even be born in Ireland to be an Irish citizen, by the way. This is how they are deemed when born in Ireland:

1. You were born in Ireland before 01/01/2005, no questions asked.
2. If you were born in Ireland after 01/01/2005, and your parents were Irish citizens.
3. If you were born in Ireland after 01/01/2005, and your parents were British citizens.
4. If you were born in Ireland after 01/01/2005, and your parents parents were refugees.
5. If you were born in Ireland after 01/01/2005, and your parents had lived in Ireland for 3 of the previous 4 years.
6. If you were born anywhere in the world, with one of your parents as an Irish citizen. This does not have to be an Irish-born citizen, and the parent does not need to be alive at the time of your birth.
7. If you were born in Ireland after 01/01/2005, and one of your grandparents were born in Ireland.
8. If you are an abandoned infant found in Ireland, whose parents do not step forward to claim you, you are considered an Irish citizen.

Failing the above, I'm quite certain a child born in Ireland who does not meet the requirements (which very few would fail to do) would quite easily be able to apply for citizenship also, while still a child - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html

FatHeadFred

Nope, it's black people that are vastly over represented. Plenty of poor whites in London but they are underrepresented in the crime stats. Black people make up circa 10% of the population but multiples of that in the crime stats.

FatHeadFred

The prison commit stats for Ireland would be interesting. Are they made available?

Billy86

FatHeadFred wrote: »

Nope, it's black people that are vastly over represented. Plenty of poor whites in London but they are underrepresented in the crime stats. Black people make up circa 10% of the population but multiples of that in the crime stats.

I take it you can link to where poor white people are under-represented in crime statistics then?

And how is it that London, with a higher per capita population of black people, is seen as safer than Dublin? It's all rather strange don't you think?

Brian?

FatHeadFred wrote: »

Completely wrong. Being born here to non Irish parents means you're not Irish.

Also, are you denying that the Irish are a distinct group?

The law was changed in 2005. So any teenager born in Ireland is an Irish citizen.

After 2005, if you are born to parents who are habitually resident in Ireland you're entitled to Irish citizenship.

I find it ironic that your post begins with "you're completely wrong" when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Brian?

FatHeadFred wrote: »

The prison commit stats for Ireland would be interesting. Are they made available?

I seriously doubt they're broken down by race if they are.

Why are you being so flagrantly racist?

ancapailldorcha

FatHeadFred wrote: »

Completely wrong. Being born here to non Irish parents means you're not Irish.

Also, are you denying that the Irish are a distinct group?

You're happy to use citizenship criteria when it suits your arguemt? Odd logic given that anyone with an Irish-born parent is automatically Irish.

Goya

I'm still wondering what was so horrendous about the thing that guy Pell wrote for The Irish Times. It wasn't even opinion, it was a jokey glossary of terms.

He barely said anything on the Claire Byrne show either.

Ben Gadot

southstar wrote: »

I was watching Claire Byrne show the other night and while I think Colm O Gorman can come across as smug that pretentious looking knob Pell really irked me.Is this a conscious style and persona adopted by these Alt-right **** stirrers when whoring themselves on the media...so edgy, out there and quick with the bon mot(really boorish and oafish) .....look at Yiannoupoulis,Hopkins,Coulter...all the bloody same, unoriginal and self serving.I watched a rerun of the Office(English version) afterwards and thought how that gormless character Garth reminds of these people ...although a considerably less cunning one it has to be said.

Check out Pell's twitter. If you think he came across as a knowing sad case on CB you ain't seen nothing.

Allergic to bullsh1t and group think apparently....I certainly wouldn't have guessed the former.

FatHeadFred

The prison commital stats are available online on the Irishprisons.ie website.

Prison commitals:

Irish 6,447 66.4%
All non-Irish nationals - 3264 33.6%
EU - 1126 11.6%
African - 612 6.3%
Asian - 611 6.3%
Other European - 311 3.2%
South American - 303 3.1%
UK - 228 2.3%
North American - 18 .02%

FatHeadFred

And how is it that London, with a higher per capita population of black people, is seen as safer than Dublin? It's all rather strange don't you think?

As they only make up 10% of the population but are wholly over represented in the crime stats. For your point to ring true, compare their crime rate in London, proportionately, to the crime rate in Dublin.

FatHeadFred

Why are you being so flagrantly racist?

It's racist to break down crime by ethnicity? Nearly every government in the western world must be racist so! ��

Anyway, as in London, black people are over represented in the prison commital stats here in Ireland.

Brian?

FatHeadFred wrote: »

It's racist to break down crime by ethnicity? Nearly every government in the western world must be racist so! ��

Anyway, as in London, black people are over represented in the prison commital stats here in Ireland.

You are quite clearly say that black people are more likely to commit crime based simply on the fact that they are black. That's stereotyping an entire race, being racist.

I've missed where you admitted being completely wrong about Irish citizenship laws.

Billy86

FatHeadFred wrote: »

As they only make up 10% of the population but are wholly over represented in the crime stats. For your point to ring true, compare their crime rate in London, proportionately, to the crime rate in Dublin.

Still waiting for your evidence on poor white people being underrepresented in crime in London.

But besides that, for your point to ring true, London would automatically have a higher crime rate than Dublin. Problem there is, London has 546 crimes per 10,000 people while Dublin has 743 - a pretty whopping 36% higher.

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/crime-nation-how-safe-is-your-area-30727076.html

Obviously you think that Irish people are even more prone to crime than you think black people are, and you won't make some transparent attempt to shift the goalposts.

johnnyskeleton

Flimpson wrote: »

I'm still wondering what was so horrendous about the thing that guy Pell wrote for The Irish Times. It wasn't even opinion, it was a jokey glossary of terms.

He barely said anything on the Claire Byrne show either.

I wondered about that as well. Some of the definitions he gave were derogatory to say the least, but what he was doing was setting out what he understood the alt right to mean by certain phrases. He didn't argue for or against their veracity.

The difficulty I suppose is that he has, separate to the article, sought to position himself as a supporter of the alt right views in Ireland and so it is implied that he not just defined the terms but also subscribes to them.

So it isn't a question of what was said, so much as who said it as far as I can see.

ancapailldorcha

Raise the standard of posting please. Nonsense posts deleted.

Brian?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wondered about that as well. Some of the definitions he gave were derogatory to say the least, but what he was doing was setting out what he understood the alt right to mean by certain phrases. He didn't argue for or against their veracity.

The difficulty I suppose is that he has, separate to the article, sought to position himself as a supporter of the alt right views in Ireland and so it is implied that he not just defined the terms but also subscribes to them.

So it isn't a question of what was said, so much as who said it as far as I can see.

It was the biased nature of the article that annoyed me. It made the alt right sound like a coalition of rambunctious youths, with no mention of the white supremacist roots.

I didn't think the brouhaha was really warranted though.

PopePalpatine

Nothing says "rambunctious" like showering women with rape threats if they dare disparage them in the media, or bombarding them with racist bile if they're not white.

southstar

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Raise the standard of posting please. Nonsense posts deleted.

Don't question moderation on thread, use the PM function.

Skullface McGubbin

Flimpson wrote: »

I'm still wondering what was so horrendous about the thing that guy Pell wrote for The Irish Times. It wasn't even opinion, it was a jokey glossary of terms.

He barely said anything on the Claire Byrne show either.

It's because it wasn't an attack piece which is what left wing Irish Times readers wanted it be. The purpose of the article was to give readers a chance to understand the definitions of some of the slang the alt right uses.
Terms like Cat Lady, Snowflake, SJW, Blue Hair etc. And the Cat ladies, Snowflakes and SJWs who read the Irish Times hate being called those terms (and so do the ones on this site) which is why they are so mad over it.

Billy86

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

It's because it wasn't an attack piece which is what left wing Irish Times readers wanted it be. The purpose of the article was to give readers a chance to understand the definitions of some of the slang the alt right uses.
Terms like Cat Lady, Snowflake, SJW, Blue Hair etc. And the Cat ladies, Snowflakes and SJWs who read the Irish Times hate being called those terms (and so do the ones on this site) which is why they are so mad over it.

From the article:

Alt-right: A young, energetic upstart faction of the Trump coalition heavily active on Twitter and underground forums. Characterised by nationalism, scepticism toward globalism and an irreverent sense of humour.

The actual alt right: https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/

Now I'm not up in arms about the article myself, but considering it was called 'The alt-right movement: everything you need to know', especially given that the author seems to share a lot of views with said alt right, does it not strike you as a little odd that it didn't mention race in there anywhere in the snippet above or the entire article? If you're confused about what I mean, click on the reddit link.

FreudianSlippers

Alt-right also seem to be anonymous posters, but I've seen some sleuthing on Reddit and the like where they've found most of the people behind the alt-right accounts are very young, relatively poor and uneducated.

Lux23

My view of the alt-right is that some people were getting tired of not being able to share their views because of what they deem to be political correctness. In some cases these views may well have been innocuous enough, e.g. I think immigration will cause issues economically and I would like there to be more control. I think that opinion is fair enough but for a long time if you shared it many people would jump down your throat and call you a racist. When its not a racist opinion, its an economic one. And so people sought out safe spaces to share and discuss opinions like that. But these spaces grew and sure enough people who wanted to share opinions such as "I want immigration to end because multiculturalism has failed" or "white people's culture is getting destroyed by immigration" joined. So what was a legitimate reaction to getting called a racist for sharing non-racist opinions got mixed up with sharing actual racist comments. And now somehow the latter is becoming as acceptable in some places as the former.

ancapailldorcha

Lux23 wrote: »

My view of the alt-right is that some people were getting tired of not being able to share their views because of what they deem to be political correctness. In some cases these views may well have been innocuous enough, e.g. I think immigration will cause issues economically and I would like there to be more control. I think that opinion is fair enough but for a long time if you shared it many people would jump down your throat and call you a racist. When its not a racist opinion, its an economic one. And so people sought out safe spaces to share and discuss opinions like that. But these spaces grew and sure enough people who wanted to share opinions such as "I want immigration to end because multiculturalism has failed" or "white people's culture is getting destroyed by immigration" joined. So what was a legitimate reaction to getting called a racist for sharing non-racist opinions got mixed up with sharing actual racist comments. And now somehow the latter is becoming as acceptable in some places as the former.

I completely disagree. People have been moaning about and bashing immigrants for a long, long time. It has always been thus. This carry on is just their victim fantasy. If oppression doesn't exist, it becomes necessary to fabricate it.

Il Fascista

Before the migrant crisis being critical of immigration had a far bigger taboo associated with it, to pretend otherwise is seriously disingenuous.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I completely disagree. People have been moaning about and bashing immigrants for a long, long time. It has always been thus. This carry on is just their victim fantasy. If oppression doesn't exist, it becomes necessary to fabricate it.

I think the poster makes a very valid point. In fact, shouting down relatively moderate opinion that disagrees with the orthodoxy of the modern liberal left causes such opinion to remain unexpressed and unchallenged until it hardens into 'truth', In other words, the liberal left's unwillingness to discuss real issues in a real way is self-defeating.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I completely disagree. People have been moaning about and bashing immigrants for a long, long time. It has always been thus. This carry on is just their victim fantasy. If oppression doesn't exist, it becomes necessary to fabricate it.

I've said it again and again, the alt right feel oppressed because they are no longer free to discriminate.