The National Party

Acosta

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This thread has been resoundingly about one group calling out extremism on both sides and condemning it, and the other group perceiving that as support for the national party.

And don't forget posters coming on here making outrageous claims with zero evidence. Isn't that right Eric?

Eric Cartman

Acosta wrote: »

And don't forget posters coming on here making outrageous claims with zero evidence. Isn't that right Eric?

thats it, a fair few responses to 'both sides have bad actors' have been outrageous defences of the left as if they were angelic and above reproach.
Believe we also had some posters claim with zero evidence that buildings were being burned down by the far right.

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats it, a fair few responses to 'both sides have bad actors' have been outrageous defences of the left as if they were angelic and above reproach.
Believe we also had some posters claim with zero evidence that buildings were being burned down by the far right.

...where are these buildings? A link if you please.

CtevenSrowder

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats it, a fair few responses to 'both sides have bad actors' have been outrageous defences of the left as if they were angelic and above reproach.
Believe we also had some posters claim with zero evidence that buildings were being burned down by the far right.

The same people who always bemoan people making unverified claims are the same ones who do it most often.

AndrewJRenko

newhouse87 wrote: »

Wont be called out by people that matter(media etc), i don't matter. Anybody who is an advocate for critical race theory is a racist, my opinion, im sure you dont agree and thats ok.

I never heard of critical race theory tbh, but the two key themes seem reasonable to me.

Personally, I'd have thought that the first response to finding out that no-one is the media is criticising one particular person wouldn't be to wonder why everyone else is wrong except me.

The Raging Bile Duct

vafankillar wrote: »

at least in the 1800s the left was actually tolerant of other views & not violent thugs that want to censor & cancel everyone

I'm seriously at a loss with this post. Do you think politically motivated violence and censorship is a recent phenomenon and is solely the preserve of one side?

vafankillar

dan1895 wrote: »

He says with a straight face in a thread about the far right national party.

was just seeing if I could actually say something that ridiculously ahistorical and still get a like from eric cartman just for owning the sjws.


but yeah as if the left of the french revolution didn't murder thousands, cut off heads, censor everything, ban religion, even created a new calender year :pac:

Dyr

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

That's nonsense. The IRA and Sinn Fein were heavily Marxist from the Troubles onwards. The Sinn Fein of the 21st century had gone more towards the centre to appeal to more voters.

The provos split from the Marxists in 69, but yeah continue waffling on there

Of course SF is now overrun with the far left, republicans has this recurring weakness for thinking that allowing their organisation to by hijacked by the far left will bring them to power

Brussels Sprout

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im saying SF’s left mask is only a recent thing and up till say the early 00’s SF were bordering on far right, now its hard to tell if mary lou has actually reformed them to be a working class left party or the extreme right is hiding behind the mask, i bet the latter

I've never heard anyone make this claim before. Do you have any evidence or links to support this claim? I find it hard to believe but I'm willing to have my mind blown.

The Raging Bile Duct

Bambi wrote: »

The provos split from the Marxists in 69, but yeah continue waffling on there

Of course SF is now overrun with the far left, republicans has this recurring weakness for thinking that allowing their organisation to by hijacked by the far left will bring them to power

The Irish Workers Party split from the IRA and Sinn Fein but those main elements retained a strong Marxist streak, as did the INLA. One thing the left are very good at doing is disagreeing and constantly splitting into smaller groups.

Are you going to tell me that you agree with Eric Cartman's assessment that Sinn Fein were really a far right movement that suddenly switched to the left?

Eric Cartman

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I've never heard anyone make this claim before. Do you have any evidence or links to support this claim? I find it hard to believe but I'm willing to have my mind blown.

A really interesting paper on it here : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29652064_Why_is_there_no_Radical_Right_Party_in_Ireland

he rise of the radical or extreme right parties in Europe - parties usually noted for strong, sometimes racist anti-immigrant ideologies - has attracted a great deal of attention in political science. Ireland, despite having some conditions favourable to the growth of such a party has no Radical Right party. This paper argues that that this is because the ‘space’ usually occupied by such parties - for young, poor people disaffected by economic change - is taken up by Sinn Féin, which though it has similarities to radical right parties, differs markedly in its attitudes to immigrants. It goes on to explain the special circumstances that prevent nationalist parties in Ireland from presenting overtly anti-immigrant platforms. The focus on anti-immigration and liberal economic policies for such parties may mean that other parties with strong resemblances are excluded from studies they might usefully be included in.

If Sinn Féin is similar to RR parties in all areas except xenophobia, then one might also question whether the selection rule for the dependent variable used in most cross-national studies is accurate. If it is not, then the invalidity of the measurement of the dependent variable might account for the failure of many studies to agree on the conditions for success of such parties.

those who might
otherwise be likely to support a Radical Right party tend to vote for the most nationalist non-mainstream party, Sinn Féin,

its rather interesting in that SF basically behaves completely like and attracts voters who would usually vote for right wing radical parties , its only difference is its distinct lack of xenophobia in public policy.

However as this paper pertains to, its nationalism attracts those types , so while SF might as a party may not be radical right, it has all the hallmarks and nationalist appeal to give those who are radical right a home. Which I would agree with. Just as FF as a party openly supported repealing the 8th despite a high concentration of members being pro-life , SF publicly and by policy welcomes immigrants despite a seeding xenophobic nationalist core of voters.

We see time and time again many SF candidates having to apologise for old tweets, conversations they thought were private etc.. that are racist, anti-semitic etc.. the party publicly expels and then re welcomes them,

Lord G. Adams himself has dropped an N word or 2 in his time.

James Brown

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

I'm seriously at a loss with this post. Do you think politically motivated violence and censorship is a recent phenomenon and is solely the preserve of one side?

The scales are beginning, beginning mind, to tip and people who are use to having it all their own way are getting uncomfortable. Censorship, racism and the like were grand when it was them doing it.

Marcos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its possible to acknowledge that both extreme elements are bad. This thread has been resoundingly about one group calling out extremism on both sides and condemning it, and the other group perceiving that as support for the national party.

I don't think we've had more than 1 or 2 new rereg accounts actually say anything positive about the NP in this thread, yet some carry on like its an NP echo chamber in here.

Do the NP even have any councillors elected?* If not how could they be regarded as any way relevant, other than as a cats paw for those who feel the need to have a fascist enemy to rail against and thereby gain support and funds? Don't forget the funds. :rolleyes:

*Out of curiousity I googled them and couldn't find any elected representatives, not even one local councillor! So how are they going to take over the country (or not) as some on here are happy to hysterically argue.

Eric Cartman

Marcos wrote: »

Do the NP even have any councillors elected?* If not how could they be regarded as any way relevant, other than as a cats paw for those who feel the need to have a fascist enemy to rail against and thereby gain support and funds? Don't forget the funds. :rolleyes:

*Out of curiousity I googled them and couldn't find any elected representatives, not even one local councillor! So how are they going to take over the country (or not) as some on here are happy to hysterically argue.

they have nobody elected and likely won't, they represent an angry fringe of the lower socio economic rungs of society that Sinn Fein became too mainstream for.

vafankillar

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A really interesting paper on it here : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29652064_Why_is_there_no_Radical_Right_Party_in_Ireland







its rather interesting in that SF basically behaves completely like and attracts voters who would usually vote for right wing radical parties , its only difference is its distinct lack of xenophobia in public policy.

However as this paper pertains to, its nationalism attracts those types , so while SF might as a party may not be radical right, it has all the hallmarks and nationalist appeal to give those who are radical right a home. Which I would agree with. Just as FF as a party openly supported repealing the 8th despite a high concentration of members being pro-life , SF publicly and by policy welcomes immigrants despite a seeding xenophobic nationalist core of voters.

.

I dont get that from the piece you posted at all.

sinn fein's nationalism like that commonly found in scotland, catalonia, basque region etc comes from a upward punching sense of self-determination & solidarity with other colonized & marginalized people.

I wouldn't say their only difference is lack of xenophobia, but rather their only similarity is anti-establishment. which gives them some overlap from voters who aren't highly politically engaged, but i'd hardly say the voter base is primirarly a xenophobic nationalist core of voters.

Eric Cartman

vafankillar wrote: »

I dont get that from the piece you posted at all.

sinn fein's nationalism like that commonly found in scotland, catalonia, basque region etc comes from a upward punching sense of self-determination & solidarity with other colonized & marginalized people.

I wouldn't say their only difference is lack of xenophobia, but rather their only similarity is anti-establishment. which gives them some overlap from voters who aren't highly politically engaged, but i'd hardly say the voter base is primirarly a xenophobic nationalist core of voters.

I think thats where we'd disagree, my personal experience with SF voters has always been the taxi drivers who blame the Nigerians for everything, the bar stool racists saying 'they took our jobs' etc... universally SF voters, sure if you look around , pre the national party they had no other political home.

Marcos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A really interesting paper on it here : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29652064_Why_is_there_no_Radical_Right_Party_in_Ireland







its rather interesting in that SF basically behaves completely like and attracts voters who would usually vote for right wing radical parties, its only difference is its distinct lack of xenophobia in public policy.

However as this paper pertains to, its nationalism attracts those types , so while SF might as a party may not be radical right, it has all the hallmarks and nationalist appeal to give those who are radical right a home.

Some could say that due to SF and it's history it was seen as a party that advocated for rights for Irish people in Ireland. But that was then, now it's different.*

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just as FF as a party openly supported repealing the 8th despite a high concentration of members being pro-life , SF publicly and by policy welcomes immigrants despite a seeding xenophobic nationalist core of voters.

It's almost as if the party leadership has been taken over by entryists as Trotkskyists might call them. If so, it would be ironic given the fact that a lot in SF would have advocated for a Socialist republic.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We see time and time again many SF candidates having to apologise for old tweets, conversations they thought were private etc.. that are racist, anti-semitic etc.. the party publicly expels and then re welcomes them

Again, that is IMO the difference between the party leadership and voter base. The likes of Paddy Holohan would be closer to the voter base then leadership.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Lord G. Adams himself has dropped an N word or 2 in his time.

Why stop there, Enda Kenny did it live on RTE during the 2002 FG Ard Fheis with an off colour joke about Patrice Lumumba, the assassinated Prime Minister of Congo. Matters were made worse when it emerged that several of Lumumba's relatives, including a son and several grandchildren, lived in Tallaght.


*I'm making these statements from the outside, never having been a member of SF or any Republican or Marxist organisation. So taking more of a helicopter view if you will.

Mad_maxx

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

That's nonsense. The IRA and Sinn Fein were heavily Marxist from the Troubles onwards. The Sinn Fein of the 21st century had gone more towards the centre to appeal to more voters.

SF were relatively conservative socially back in the day , they still are in Northern Ireland to a degree

they have become a lot more focussed on progressive politics down here this past decade

calling them " far right " at any stage is BS though

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Would the lack of an extreme right party not be linked to likes of ian paisley and dup etc etc??


Like,people can look on at them,and see the obvious outworkings.....and virtually every far right startup here,ends up with links to unionism,while pertaining to want to protect irish culture??

the DUP are not far right and werent under Ian Paisley either , the mad dog adair corner of loyalism never had much in common with evangeilicalism of the kind that are the base of the DUP

they are anti catholic but that doesnt make them far right

Dyr

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

The Irish Workers Party split from the IRA and Sinn Fein but those main elements retained a strong Marxist streak, as did the INLA. One thing the left are very good at doing is disagreeing and constantly splitting into smaller groups.

Are you going to tell me that you agree with Eric Cartman's assessment that Sinn Fein were really a far right movement that suddenly switched to the left?

The main elements eh?

The Provisional IRAs leadership after the split was guys like:

Sean McStiofain
Ruari O'Bradaigh
Billy McKee
Seamus Twomey
Jimmy Steele
Daithi O'Connail

Point which of them had a strong Marxist streak. Most of them held conservative Catholic views and had a major problem with the Marxists who had taken over the IRA at the time

Have a read of their Eire Nua policy, its closer to Devs early national self reliance policies than Das Kapital so unless Dev was a Trot.... there wasn't many Marxists around in the early 70s who wanted private enterprise aligned with state control of national industries.

In fact, its all a hell of a lot closer to Italian fascist economic policy than Marxism, so Eric isn't totally wrong.

Even when Adams and was bringing socialism into SF more and more in the 80s, the IRA leadership were mostly outright nationalists with little interest. You think Kevin McKenna and Slab Murphy were seeking to overthrow the bourgeoisie?

The reality is that Marxists are opposed to Nationalism and only use Nationalist movements as entryist tools.

John Doe1

Ireland needs a party which has classic Western liberalism at its core but is also sceptical of the multiculturalism project. Also, a party which stops giving so much money/property to the workshy. A party which is not influenced by the American cult of wokism. Basically, a party which represents the people who actually fund the tax base.

The national party however will never get a foothold in this country as there are not enough catholics and not enough racist knuckledraggers.

AndrewJRenko

John Doe1 wrote: »

Also, a party which stops giving so much money/property to the workshy.

It's just not nice to speak about landlords like that.

Niallof9

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think thats where we'd disagree, my personal experience with SF voters has always been the taxi drivers who blame the Nigerians for everything, the bar stool racists saying 'they took our jobs' etc... universally SF voters, sure if you look around , pre the national party they had no other political home.

exactly this. i live in the inner city, and the protests during the summer had lads heading down from the inner city, some even using the same white shirt uniforms they probably had used in SF stuff.

People are asleep if they don't think this is happening.

SF will lose their core vote when they get into power and once nothing changes for the people that make up the core vote, they will look to blame SF and move on.

SF is trying to appeal to middle class voters, working class voters, welfare class, hardened Republicans, nationalists, the woke left, west brits, the middle ground, unionists, immigrants, unions, businesses...it can't be all squared. Something will have to give.

Mass immigration and the like alienates working class voters and areas as the two sides compete for resources, jobs, welfare. Its not a new story. SF in my book will 100 per cent lose the margins of society. The hardened Republicans, the true working class and the welfare class. I hate class terminology but its shorthand for social analysis or whatever you want to call it.

SF are a left wing party no doubt. But the political spectrum is a horseshoe, and at times it can look very similar. It basically boils down to simple contradictions.

I predict the party will split again at some stage. You could even get a nationalist party splinter group tie up.

Like any voter going for SF thinking that nationalism and unification (rightly or wrongly) doesn't make up their raison d'etre needs to take a hard look at themselves. But that will clash with the younger SF person who thinks its all about the social crusade. they are living in a dream world, and some day soon the Republican side of SF will wake up. Their whole being is a socialist 32 county Republic.

Most of the woke left or your Paul Murphys would actually think nationalism is a dirty word. So how does SF figure all that out? imo it can't. In fairness to SF their policy towards immigration and i suppose diversity etc is welcome. Its one of their strengths.

The national party is a bunch of cranks, but they aren't selling that nationalist dream. But at times they seem so similar, and can you blame some people for being confused and maybe angry when they think SF are moving away from it.

Its the reason i'm not a Republican myself. a twee white, socialist, catholic, 32 county republic at all costs? no thanks. and this is definitely in many peoples head when they imagine it. you see it with the United Ireland debates. people can't even countenance changing a flag to compromise etc. I'd reckon a small percentage in SF would also think that way, they just don't say it. clearly many of their supporters don't connect the dots. Doing a Paddy Holohon if you will.

Wanderer78

John Doe1 wrote:

Ireland needs a party which has classic Western liberalism at its core but is also sceptical of the multiculturalism project. Also, a party which stops giving so much money/property to the workshy. A party which is not influenced by the American cult of wokism. Basically, a party which represents the people who actually fund the tax base.

You lads are funny, but you really should do some research before posting nonsense on the internets, as others have pointed out, the majority of wealth, including assets such as property and land, has become highly concentrated, largely due to western economic and political libertarian ideologies. you're quick to blame folks for this, but you're actually pointing the finger in the completely wrong direction, tis has virtually fcuk all to be doing with the welfare classes, and this is 'clearly obvious'!

Niallof9

Ireland needs a middle ground party.

cóisir lár talún - CLT. recognizing both sides have strengths and weaknesses.

we need to look after the weakest in our society to have a happy one, but we also need to reward those who work hard or give back to society.

The Raging Bile Duct

Niallof9 wrote: »

Ireland needs a middle ground party.

cóisir lár talún - CLT. recognizing both sides have strengths and weaknesses.

Like Fine Gael and Fianna Fail?

Niallof9

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Like Fine Gael and Fianna Fail?

look i agree,

I just mean a rebranded populist type of one.

You could argue FF is actually slightly left of centre, given their history of welfare in the last 20 years . i mean of course it doesn't suit narratives.

so i get what you're saying. but the names are tainted.

I like Stephen Donnelly thought the Soc dems wouldn't be as radical as they were - more of a Danish model

so i'm talking about a new party based squarely in the middle. no Renua ****e, no soc dem ****e. a manifesto built on acceptance that no system is perfect or correct.

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

their policies are v.much to the right imo


Yous ask your average person walking the street,if they are far right,you'll soon see most see them as such


They (and unionism in general) looks to me,to be obvious outworking of far right politics.......im aware,this is in an extra-ordinary envirnoment etc.....


but the links between irish far right and unionism,while pertaining to want to protect irish culture is a fallacy that almost everyone sees through imo

the DUP are of course extremely conservative socially though quite protectionist on economic matters , they are not " far right " though

they are a rare beast , very few political parties left in europe who have religion at their core , they are fundamentalist protestants but that doesnt make them far right , just anti catholic

Mad_maxx

Niallof9 wrote: »

exactly this. i live in the inner city, and the protests during the summer had lads heading down from the inner city, some even using the same white shirt uniforms they probably had used in SF stuff.

People are asleep if they don't think this is happening.

SF will lose their core vote when they get into power and once nothing changes for the people that make up the core vote, they will look to blame SF and move on.

SF is trying to appeal to middle class voters, working class voters, welfare class, hardened Republicans, nationalists, the woke left, west brits, the middle ground, unionists, immigrants, unions, businesses...it can't be all squared. Something will have to give.

Mass immigration and the like alienates working class voters and areas as the two sides compete for resources, jobs, welfare. Its not a new story. SF in my book will 100 per cent lose the margins of society. The hardened Republicans, the true working class and the welfare class. I hate class terminology but its shorthand for social analysis or whatever you want to call it.

SF are a left wing party no doubt. But the political spectrum is a horseshoe, and at times it can look very similar. It basically boils down to simple contradictions.

I predict the party will split again at some stage. You could even get a nationalist party splinter group tie up.

Like any voter going for SF thinking that nationalism and unification (rightly or wrongly) doesn't make up their raison d'etre needs to take a hard look at themselves. But that will clash with the younger SF person who thinks its all about the social crusade. they are living in a dream world, and some day soon the Republican side of SF will wake up. Their whole being is a socialist 32 county Republic.

Most of the woke left or your Paul Murphys would actually think nationalism is a dirty word. So how does SF figure all that out? imo it can't. In fairness to SF their policy towards immigration and i suppose diversity etc is welcome. Its one of their strengths.

The national party is a bunch of cranks, but they aren't selling that nationalist dream. But at times they seem so similar, and can you blame some people for being confused and maybe angry when they think SF are moving away from it.

Its the reason i'm not a Republican myself. a twee white, socialist, catholic, 32 county republic at all costs? no thanks. and this is definitely in many peoples head when they imagine it. you see it with the United Ireland debates. people can't even countenance changing a flag to compromise etc. I'd reckon a small percentage in SF would also think that way, they just don't say it. clearly many of their supporters don't connect the dots. Doing a Paddy Holohon if you will.

Eoin o Broin is the architect of the strategy of the party this past decade

i doubt Martin McGuiness was too bothered about trans issue back in Derry or other WOKE politics

Mike Murdock

John Doe1 wrote: »

Ireland needs a party which has classic Western liberalism at its core but is also sceptical of the multiculturalism project. Also, a party which stops giving so much money/property to the workshy. A party which is not influenced by the American cult of wokism. Basically, a party which represents the people who actually fund the tax base.

The national party however will never get a foothold in this country as there are not enough catholics and not enough racist knuckledraggers.

Irony being if a party like that were set up here, it would be pilloried in the media as being "Alt-Right" or "Far-Right".