Ireland is now only 82% Native Irish.

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

A person who claims to be educated, and educated in history no less, would know not to 'presume' without evidence.

As a matter of fact, your whole output here is a dazzling display of lack of historical training, or respect for sources.

Again, you referred to "a rotten ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of it's people..." (your grammatical error).

The Easter Rising tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of its people.

Hundreds of people died as a result, many of them innocent bystanders.

So clearly, given your quote, one can only presume that you see the 1916 Rising as a manifestation of the sort of "rotten ideology" that you rail against.

This was the same Rising that would turn out to have effectively given birth to the Irish Republic as we know it.

The Rising was against the will of the people. But it would later turn out to have transformed the culture of Ireland against what the will of its people was that week in April 1916.

It only gained retrospective legitimacy in their eyes, well after the event.

The only other alternative to what I describe above is that you don't consider "efforts to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of its people" a "rotten ideology".

And that my friend, would make you a total hypocrite, given what you posted previously.

Lefty Bicek

Billy86 wrote: »

harm·ful
/ˈhärmfəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
causing or likely to cause harm.

So do you?

I don't need a dictionary definition.

I'm asking you to tell me whether you're referring to 'harmful' as in 'harmful to GDP', or 'harmful to our reputation abroad', or 'harmful to individual tourists' experiences of Ireland' ?

Billy86

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I don't need a dictionary definition.

I'm asking you to tell me whether you're referring to 'harmful' as in 'harmful to GDP', or 'harmful to our reputation abroad', or 'harmful to individual tourists' experiences of Ireland' ?

All three. You can sort them individually if you like,or all as one.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Again, you referred to "a rotten ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of it's people..." (your grammatical error).

The Easter Rising tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of its people.

Hundreds of people died as a result, many of them innocent bystanders.

So clearly, given your quote, one can only presume that you see the 1916 Rising as a manifestation of the sort of "rotten ideology" that you rail against.

This was the same Rising that would turn out to have effectively given birth to the Irish Republic as we know it.

The Rising was against the will of the people. But it would later turn out to have transformed the culture of Ireland against what the will of its people was that week in April 1916.

It only gained retrospective legitimacy in their eyes.

The only other alternative to what I describe above is that you don't consider it a "rotten ideology".

And that my friend, would make you a total hypocrite, given what you posted previously.

What a fatuous comparison, the decades of the Soviet Union versus the Easter Rising.



But I could just as easily point out the racism of some signatories of the Proclamation, and say that your support for that makes you a racist.

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

What a fatuous comparison, the decades of the Soviet Union versus the Easter Rising.



But I could just as easily point out the racism of some signatories of the Proclamation, and say that your support for that makes you a racist.

You haven't dealt with my points at all.

Please do so when you get a chance.

Do you consider the Easter Rising to have been the product of a "rotten ideology", as you imply?

Or, are you just a total hypocrite?

I haven't said what my view on the Rising is.

I don't know why you presume to know what it is.

In your own words, "A person who claims to be educated, and educated in history no less, would know not to 'presume' without evidence."

Checkmate.

Ruraldweller56

Billy86 wrote: »

Why can't you answer? It's awful predictable,as you don't appear to have a clue what you're on about, but you could at least try.

No I'm happy enough with your crap. Why should I argue with it?

Baby death, anti Christianity, globohomo bullsh1t, English speaking homogeneity.

I like my country. Or used to. I know I'm fighting a losing battle.

Ultimate Seduction

batgoat wrote: »

See that is complete nonsense. Anti semitism, racism, homophobia all exist and engaging in it, can be hate speech. Untethered freedom of speech does not exist in Ireland and plenty of other nations. This is for good reason. Eg I don't think you should have the right to target individuals with hateful diatribes and I would view it as sickening, it can also get you prosecuted.


Although your above statement does a good job at highlighting what actual motivates you. You just lacked the guts to really say what you're thinking when you opened the thread. Bit sad really.

I'd like to distance myself from that poster, but can you clarify your position on the anti Irish racist post I've quoted? Its funny that post went over an hour without being commented on, but I challenge it, replace white with black, and get commented immediately.

Lefty Bicek

Billy86 wrote: »

All three. You can sort them individually if you like,or all as one.

Research suggests that the issue is not at all clearcut.

From the link I provided already -

The findings suggest that some employers can put forward a number of clear, positive reasons for employing Eastern European workers. These reasons are mainly driven by the migrant workers having certain abilities that British employees lack. On the other hand, however, some employers also suggest
that Eastern European workers have certain limitations, which could have implications for the quality of service delivery.

So certainly, individuals can have a negative experience. And have had.

If that is true in an attractive part of the UK, it is without doubt true in Ireland.

I'm not an economist, and didn't make any claim on that basis.

Ultimate Seduction

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

No I'm happy enough with your crap. Why should I argue with it?

Baby death, anti Christianity, globohomo bullsh1t, English speaking homogeneity.

I like my country. Or used to. I know I'm fighting a losing battle.

We won't lose. Theres more of us than them, silent majority.

Billy86

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

warble warble buzzwords I read on info wars warble warble .

Get back to me when you are able to actually articulate your points. You don't even appear to know what you're on about, so there's no point engaging your jibberish.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I haven't said what my view on the Rising is.

I don't know why you presume to know what it is.

Oh I see. You're a member of the hill16 Orange Lodge, are you ?

Apart from that - just because I think Soviet Communism was a rotten ideology, doesn''t mean I think that Irish Independence is or was.

Only an idiot would assume that.

Billy86

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

We won't lose. Theres more of us than them, silent majority.

OK so which party is winning next year's election with this majority... Renua, Identity Ireland, Justin Barrett's loonies, or someone else I'm unaware of?

Ruraldweller56

Billy86 wrote: »

Get back to me when you are able to actually articulate your points. You don't even appear to know what you're on about, so there's no point engaging your jibberish.

Misquoting people. You should be working for the sun or the mirror pal.

Ruraldweller56

Billy86 wrote: »

Get back to me when you are able to actually articulate your points. You don't even appear to know what you're on about, so there's no point engaging your jibberish.

Reported

Billy86

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Misquoting people. You should be working for the sun or the mirror pal.

Nah, I gave you the chance to explain further what you meant but you refused to like a coward - which was 100% expected because you lot are remarkably predictable. There's no point entertaining that nonsense.

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Reported

SEE! I told you not to use that victim card too early. :pac:

I attacked the (lack of) content of your post, if you can't handle it then maybe don't post things you don't have the courage to expand on.

Ruraldweller56

Billy86 wrote: »

Nah, I gave you the chance to explain further what you meant but you refused to like a coward - which was 100% expected because you lot are remarkably predictable. There's no point entertaining that nonsense.


SEE! I told you not to use that victim card too early. :pac:

I attacked the (lack of) content of your post, if you can't handle it then maybe don't post things you don't have the courage to expand on.

I've the screenshot of your crap. Before YOU cry victim.

hill16bhoy

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

No I'm happy enough with your crap. Why should I argue with it?

Baby death, anti Christianity, globohomo bullsh1t, English speaking homogeneity.

I like my country. Or used to. I know I'm fighting a losing battle.

The far right love to throw out the abusive term "self-hating Irishman/woman" about anybody who supports welcoming people into our country and/or doesn't subscribe to the bull**** perpetrated by the small minority of Irish people who want to propel Ireland backwards to a fantasy golden age of racial and ethnic purity, that never existed in reality.

So, given that you seem to so thoroughly dislike the culture of your own country, I guess that makes you a "self-hating Irishman/woman"?

Yes?

Billy86

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I've the screenshot of your crap. Before YOU cry victim.

Post it, please, right here on this thread for all to see.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The far right love to throw out the abusive term "self-hating Irishman/woman" about anybody who supports welcoming people into our country and/or doesn't subscribe to the bull**** perpetrated by the small minority of Irish people who want to propel Ireland backwards to a fantasy golden age of racial and ethnic purity, that never existed in reality.

So, given that you seem to so thoroughly dislike the culture of your own country, I guess that makes you a "self-hating Irishman/woman"?

Yes?

As Patrick Pearse has been accused of ?

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Oh I see. You're a member of the hill16 Orange Lodge, are you ?

Apart from that - just because I think Soviet Communism was a rotten ideology, doesn''t mean I think that Irish Independence is or was.

Only an idiot would assume that.

You've assumed my views on the Rising from my user name?

Is this a serious post?

And from somebody with far right views who has the word "Lefty" in their user name?

You've really lost it if that's the basis of your argument. And there were you railing against "presumptions" of a person's views. Tut tut.

You still haven't clarified whether you believe the Rising was a manifestation of a "rotten ideology" - as you imply - or if you're just a total hypocrite.

Based on what you've posted, it can only be one of these two.

Ruraldweller56

Billy86 wrote: »

Post it, please, right here on this thread for all to see.

It's been sent to the mods. I'll tolerate just about anything, in terms of personal abuse or bullsh1t. But you misquoted me completely and tried to make me look as if I said something I didn't.

Thats a line I'd never cross. But sure hey ho.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

What a fatuous comparison, the decades of the Soviet Union versus the Easter Rising.



But I could just as easily point out the racism of some signatories of the Proclamation, and say that your support for that makes you a racist.

Which signatories of the proclamation were racist?

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

An argument loved by the hard right / far right English Brexiteers. They don't seem too interested in the fact that such people move with the intention of working hard and are a boost to the host economy, not a drain on it (you'll find very few such people in a hospital bed for example).

Yes on aggregate they are a drain, they have a higher unemployment rate

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

As Patrick Pearse has been accused of ?

Patrick Pearse had, at best, some deeply questionable views - and that's being very charitable.

He was certainly a fanatic and an extremist.

I'm deeply cynical about the deification of people, especially Pearse.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And from somebody with far right views who has the word "Lefty" in their user name?

Lefty Bicek is a character from the writing of Nelson Algren. Nothing to do with politics.

You still haven't clarified whether you believe the Rising was a manifestation of a "rotten ideology" - as you imply

I implied no such thing.

Soviet Communism is obviously what I was referring to. A rotten, oppressive ideology.

Total non sequitur of yours that other movements and attempts to liberate people are rotten ideologies.

So importing chohorts who have unemployment rates of over 20-30++% somehow helps the economy and will help us too retire

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Patrick Pearse had, at best, some deeply questionable views - and that's being very charitable.

He was certainly a fanatic and an extremist.

I'm deeply cynical about the deification of people, especially Pearse.

Very one-dimensional characterisation. Tut tut.

If you were a bit better informed on the state of historical scholarship, you'd know that one very prominent historian in this field has challenged the lazy view of his being particular.

Ruraldweller56

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Patrick Pearse had, at best, some deeply questionable views - and that's being very charitable.

He was certainly a fanatic and an extremist.

I'm deeply cynical about the deification of people, especially Pearse.

Why though? Why do the likes of yourself pretend he was into this ****lib crap?

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

So importing chohorts who have unemployment rates of over 20-30++% somehow helps the economy and will help us too retire

And naturally, they will never grow old, nor need pensions themselves.

So there will be no need to rinse and repeat the lunacy ever more desperately in a few decades time.

Oh, wait...

Ultimate Seduction

Billy86 wrote: »

OK so which party is winning next year's election with this majority... Renua, Identity Ireland, Justin Barrett's loonies, or someone else I'm unaware of?

I'm not sure, I will be voting Fine Geal, so obviously I hope they remain in government after the next GE.

I strongly disagree with all major party's on immigration, or future plans for immigration.

My stance on immigration doesn't attach me to a certain political party.

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Lefty Bicek is a character from the writing of Nelson Algren. Nothing to do with politics.

Cool. I didn't assume you had "lefty" political views based on your user name, not should you assume my political views based on my user name.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I implied no such thing.

Soviet Communism is obviously what I was referring to. A rotten, oppressive ideology.

Total non sequitur of yours that other movements and attempts to liberate people are rotten ideologies.

The real purpose of your reference was in relation to migration into Ireland. Otherwise the reference would have made no sense. You referred to Soviet communism as "a rotten ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of it's people". You did this in order to make a direct comparison to migration into Ireland.

There are so many holes in this, it's difficult to know where to start.

First of all, Soviet communism may well have been a rotten ideology, but it's rather difficult to argue that it was initially imposed against the will of the people.

In fact, the majority of the people initially considered it a "liberation", though it turned out to be anything but.

So, in fact, the subject of your initial post in this mini-exchange fails straight away.

Secondly, you earlier tried to claim that a comparison of the struggle for an independent Ireland and Soviet Communism was a fatuous comparison.

I agree. I wasn't comparing them.

What I was comparing was what you said about Soviet communism - that it was "a rotten ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of it's people" to the contemporaneous views of the people of Ireland about the 1916 Rising.

It's undeniable that the majority of the people of Dublin were against the Easter Rising at the time it happened. It was highly unpopular. The majority of the people of Ireland were against it at the time it happened.

To attempt to "transform the culture of a nation against the will of its people", as the leaders of the Rising were so clearly doing, must amount to a "rotten ideology", according to your logic.

If you don't consider it a rotten ideology, you're a hypocrite and your reference loses all relevance, as you're then basically cherry picking which historical events that were unwanted at the time by the people that lived through them, were justified or not, based on your own personal biases - not on any principle.

Thridly, Irish people broadly support migration into this country. The proof is in the politics.

Fourthly, a comparison of Soviet communism to migration into Ireland is a comparison so stupid as barely merit an acknowledgement.

Fifthly, the comparison of the EU to the British Empire, which so many far right nut jobs are only too happy to make, is also a comparison so stupid as to barely merit acknowledgement.

Billy86

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

It's been sent to the mods. I'll tolerate just about anything, in terms of personal abuse or bullsh1t. But you misquoted me completely and tried to make me look as if I said something I didn't.

Thats a line I'd never cross. But sure hey ho.

So shame me and post it right here in the thread. You know, unless you're completely making stuff up to deflect from not having the courage to articulate what you were on about.

Edit: Before you say it, there are no rules against posting screenshots of other posts from the thread. So have at it.

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Very one-dimensional characterisation. Tut tut.

If you were a bit better informed on the state of historical scholarship, you'd know that one very prominent historian in this field has challenged the lazy view of his being particular.

We know Pearse was a fanatic because of his words.

"The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. On whatever side the men who rule the peoples have marshalled them. It is policy that moves the governments; it is patriotism that stirs the peoples. It is good for the world that such things should be done. The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefields. Such august homage was never offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country.’

They are unequivocally the words of a nationalist fanatic, glorifying one of history's greatest abominations.

Pearse was a prototype of the far right politicians of today who invoke nostalgia and implore a "return" to an imagined golden age of yesteryear, with "racial purity" at the centre of it all.

He fought for a racially pure, "Gaelic" Ireland.

His modus operandi was to invoke the past, not the future.

While James Connolly was undoubtedly prepared to die for the cause of anti-imperialism, he was very different to Pearse in that he always looked forward, to create a new society rather than recreate an imagined previous one - he looked forward, rather than backward, and he did not fight for "patriotism" or a "Gaelic Ireland", but for the struggle of workers - to him the workers in Protestant East Belfast were equally important to the plight of dockers and tram drivers in Dublin.

Connolly was an immigrant to two countries, remember.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Cool. I didn't assume you had "lefty" political views based on your user name,

You had no business being an uninformed smartarse about it then, did you ?

You were referred to Soviet communism as "a rotten ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation, against the will of it's people". You did this in order to make a direct comparison to migration.

No. Not 'migration', but 'mass-immigration'.

In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilisation. I do not agree with this opinion...

Yet the whole 'one-world' BS almost by definition revolves around exalting diversity within the nation, while simultaneously destroying diversity between nations.

gormdubhgorm

vladmydad wrote: »

Without the racist, xenophobic accusations and all that crap, does anyone have any concerns about just how rapidly the Irish people are decreasing in Ireland ?
It’s a very recent phenomenon and given that immigration into Ireland is ever increasing and that the birth rates of the “new” Irish are dramatically higher than natives. It is inevitable that 82% will soon be 70% , 55%, 40% etc.

There is no debate in Irish media or politics about this and we have never voted on the issue. In fact it’s actually taboo. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts:
Well, considering a large proportion of the Irish population are vehemently anti- thier own language (Gaeilge). For no other reason then stereotyping from a colonial past, and many Irish youngsters speak English with American intonations - I think it is a good thing.
Because many non-native Irish do not have the same level of baggage and prejudice that Irish people have to Irish culture.
Also at the very least the youngsters will not sound like they are from an episode from Nikelodean if they speak English!

hill16bhoy

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Why though? Why do the likes of yourself pretend he was into this ****lib crap?

I see you're complaining on the thread about people portraying you as saying things you never said.

Well, tut tut, look what you've done here.

qwerty ui op

vladmydad wrote: »

Well I’ve spent some time reviewing the thread and the t
- Irish people don’t really exist
- sure those immigrants are better than us
- Ireland is pale and stale etc
- immigration is always good
- if your talking about immigration you’re secretly racist
- immigrants speak better Irish than us because again they’re better than us
- yeh those anti terror barriers in Dublin are the result of an increased risk because of Islamic terrorism but sure we were terrorists one time.....so there
- yeh Ireland has gone from 98% Irish to 82% Irish in just 20 years ..... so what
- ghettoisation like in France Belgium Uk Italy will (for some reason) not happen here ( Blanchardstown)
- Because we emigrated thoroughout the centuries means we have an obligation to mass immigration.
- you have very little risk of being killed by terrorism so like what’s the problem, you racist
- if we become a minority in Ireland in the future, so what and sure again we don’t exist anyway so like deal with it.
- even though our infrastructure is bursting at the seams with not enough houses, ,schools, hospitals etc sure what does thousands and thousands of extra people coming into the country have to do with it.
- putting asylum centers into tiny rural community’s is fine and only racists would complain about such a massive cultural shock

I could go on. I always knew the Irish had a bit of self loathing, it at times can be funny and disarming but this is just pathological.

When you look at the thread title it appears to be a thread about skin color.

When you read the opening post it is in fact a thread mostly about skin color

When you look at the posts in the thread if clear it's a thread where people mainly share their concerns about a change in the skin color from the country being white.



So often here, it's blatantly obvious that your so-called concerns are an attempt to mask your real concerns.

You've just done this twice above

1/ Infrastructure

2/ Rural communities

Are we really to believe that this is where your concern lies?
Have you any idea how insane that sounds?

I consider this to be, you muttering in the corner


I know full well, you(s) have issues when it comes to skin color but other than that, I can't say much more because you won't say! all you do is, just keep in a huddle muttering away in the corner.

You talk about self loathing yet your username is short for, Vladimir Putin is my daddy

You want, who you see as a strong willed man, to take charge and to tell you what to do and how to think.
And if you do what he says everything is going to be o.k and you'll get to hold onto that wounderful self image you have about yourself.

That's just pathetic.
Why not stop your muttering and be honest with yourself

eagle eye

No it's not. Eastern Europeans for the most part are white.
There has been a lot of talk about them this thread.

hill16bhoy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You had no business being an uninformed smartarse about it then, did you ?

But I wasn't uninformed.

I correctly assumed the sort of political views you have not from your user name, but from your posts.

You, on the other hand, incorrectly assumed my political views from my user name - the specific views that were the subject of your incorrect assumption are much too complex and nuanced to be summed up in a user name.

Then again, I'm not a bit surprised that those on the far right would try and reduce everything to crude reductionism.

No. Not 'migration', but 'mass-immigration'.

I'm not sure what "mass immigration" is, but we certainly don't have it here.

When people talk about "mass migration", one of the few examples I can think of is the USA over its history.

I find it really, really strange that you would compare immigration to the USA to Soviet communism.

Not for the first time from you, a comparison that is so stupid as to almost not merit acknowledgement.

Yet the whole 'one-world' BS almost by definition revolves around exalting diversity within the nation, while simultaneously destroying diversity between nations.

I don't see much destruction of diversity between nations, unless you're referring the the destruction in diversity between Britain and the USA over the last 400 odd years, or the destruction in diversity between Britain and Australia over the last 200 odd?

Another straw man.

I guess it depends on whether you think non-white or non-Christian people can be Irish, British, French or Swedish etc.

I think the unequivocal answer to that is that yes, not only can they be, they are.

Amazingly enough, any time I saw Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott or Samantha Mumba or Sean Og O'hAilpin or Sadiq Khan or Sajid Javid or Paul Ince or Ian Wright or Amy Winehouse or Paul Pogba or Serge Blanco or Henrik Larsson or Zlatan Ibrahimovic, or indeed Kevin Sharkey, whose views I would totally disagree with, I never thought of them as any less Irish, British, French or Swedish than anybody else from their respective countries.

Like, I can't get my head around how the diversity between Harry Kane and Antoine Griezmann is any bigger than the diversity between Raheem Sterling and Paul Pogba.

Could you tell me?

vladmydad

qwerty ui op wrote: »

vladmydad wrote: »

Well I’ve spent some time reviewing the thread and the t
- Irish people don’t really exist
- sure those immigrants are better than us
- Ireland is pale and stale etc
- immigration is always good
- if your talking about immigration you’re secretly racist
- immigrants speak better Irish than us because again they’re better than us
- yeh those anti terror barriers in Dublin are the result of an increased risk because of Islamic terrorism but sure we were terrorists one time.....so there
- yeh Ireland has gone from 98% Irish to 82% Irish in just 20 years ..... so what
- ghettoisation like in France Belgium Uk Italy will (for some reason) not happen here ( Blanchardstown)
- Because we emigrated thoroughout the centuries means we have an obligation to mass immigration.
- you have very little risk of being killed by terrorism so like what’s the problem, you racist
- if we become a minority in Ireland in the future, so what and sure again we don’t exist anyway so like deal with it.
- even though our infrastructure is bursting at the seams with not enough houses, ,schools, hospitals etc sure what does thousands and thousands of extra people coming into the country have to do with it.
- putting asylum centers into tiny rural community’s is fine and only racists would complain about such a massive cultural shock

I could go on. I always knew the Irish had a bit of self loathing, it at times can be funny and disarming but this is just pathological.

When you look at the thread title it appears to be a thread about skin color.

When you read the opening post it is in fact a thread mostly about skin color

When you look at the posts in the thread if clear it's a thread where people mainly share their concerns about a change in the skin color from the country being white.



So often here, it's blatantly obvious that your so-called concerns are an attempt to mask your real concerns.

You've just done this twice above

1/ Infrastructure

2/ Rural communities

Are we really to believe that this is where your concern lies?
Have you any idea how insane that sounds?

I consider this to be, you muttering in the corner


I know full well, you(s) have issues when it comes to skin color but other than that, I can't say much more because you won't say! all you do is, just keep in a huddle muttering away in the corner.

You talk about self loathing yet your username is short for, Vladimir Putin is my daddy

You want, who you see as a strong willed man, to take charge and to tell you what to do and how to think.
And if you do what he says everything is going to be o.k and you'll get to hold onto that wounderful self image you have about yourself.

That's just pathetic.
Why not stop your muttering and be honest with yourself

The only ones telling people how to think are the left. Thankfully your poisonous anti west ideology is getting a hammering across Europe, However it will take a while longer to get organized here. The presidential election was a shot across the bow to the Irish political establishment, it’s up to them if they want to hear it or not. If they choose to ignore it then unfortunately it will manifest itself in a much more radical form. Reduce immigration, reduce the ridiculous, endless asylum appeals, cut taxes for the middle class and show at least some sceptacism towards the EU and stop the PC ****e e.g. Men cannot have an abortion for Christ sakes

hill16bhoy

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's not. Eastern Europeans for the most part are white.
There has been a lot of talk about them this thread.

The distinct impression I always get from these threads is that certain people try to claim to be fine with immigrants from Poland, Hungary, Lithuania or Latvia etc. as a mendacious defence against their obvious racism - when in fact such a defence actually proves their racism!

As well as simultaneously completely demolishing their claim that they think migration is a problem.

Oops.

The far right needs to get better arguments, because their current ones are so laughably ****.

That could be a very tough task.

hill16bhoy

vladmydad wrote: »

The only ones telling people how to think are the left. Thankfully your poisonous anti west ideology is getting a hammering across Europe, However it will take a while longer to get organized here. The presidential election was a shot across the bow to the Irish political establishment, it’s up to them if they want to hear it or not. If they choose to ignore it then unfortunately it will manifest itself in a much more radical form. Reduce immigration, reduce the ridiculous, endless asylum appeals, cut taxes for the middle class and show at least some sceptacism towards the EU and stop the PC ****e e.g. Men cannot have an abortion for Christ sakes

Try writing your own posts in future instead of copying and pasting from whatever far right cliche manual you took that one from.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

indeed Kevin Sharkey, whose views I would totally disagree with

Letting him away a bit lightly there aren't you ?

Considering what you have to say from behind your computer about posters on here who share his views, I'd like to see you characterise him in the same way.

But you haven't the guts.

"...it is going to end up coming down to one thing and that is numbers.

"We are not a big country and in 20 years time, at the rate we are going, we have places in Ireland now where there are people who are feeling they no longer have a choice, no longer have a say.

"We should have an honest open dialogue about it without being shut down and called racist.

...

He also said the UK could be viewed as an example of what can happen with mass immigration.

"It's great when people come to Ireland and contribute and respect our culture but I think when you go to other places like the UK you start to see that without proper integration the idea of multiculturalism can end up in ghettos.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ireland-is-being-repopulated-and-it-doesnt-seem-to-matter-to-the-powers-that-be-who-is-coming-kevin-sharkey-calls-for-open-dialogue-on-immigration-36763433.html


.

Lefty Bicek

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The distinct impression I always get from these threads is that certain people try to claim to be fine with immigrants from Poland, Hungary, Lithuania or Latvia etc. as a mendacious defence against their obvious racism - when in fact such a defence actually proves their racism!

As well as simultaneously completely demolishing their claim that they think migration is a problem.

What the hell does that even mean ?

Lefty Bicek

The population of Ireland went from 3,848,776 in 2000, to 4,626,928 in the decade that followed.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ireland-population/


An increase of 20% in ten years.


But seemingly, that is not mass-immigration.

Over in the UK:

About 70% of the population increase between the 2001 and 2011 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-2

That is definitely mass migration. Use the map in Figure 5 here to see why London was the part of England that voted remain
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2017

Its interesting to see how migration has shaped the UK and will shape Europe. Just look at the ISIS like political party getting elected in Belgium

maninasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

No.

Yes.

Lefty Bicek

Using Census figures -

2002 - 2011, +17%

2002 - 2016, +21%

It is mass immigration.

DS86DS

vladmydad wrote: »

Without the racist, xenophobic accusations and all that crap, does anyone have any concerns about just how rapidly the Irish people are decreasing in Ireland ?
It’s a very recent phenomenon and given that immigration into Ireland is ever increasing and that the birth rates of the “new” Irish are dramatically higher than natives. It is inevitable that 82% will soon be 70% , 55%, 40% etc.

There is no debate in Irish media or politics about this and we have never voted on the issue. In fact it’s actually taboo. What are your thoughts?

This is some really weak debate. Argue the points because if all you can argue is "You're racist.", you don't have much else to say. All you're doing is attempting a victory via ad hominum, which is completely worthless.