The National Party

My point was to say that the National Party are at least talking about a legitimate issue in a way that no other mainstream party is - and that's a mistake.

They shouldn't be allowed to own that topic.

It's the inconsistency that's glaring.

When that man tried to murder children on Parnell Street, the National Party used that as a means of promoting the anger and rioting in response. As a consequence of which, the National Party is condemned.

When George Floyd was murdered in cold blood, BLM and other far-left organisations promoted riots on a much larger scale across the US - and these organisations are held in the highest esteem.

Here's my point: when it comes to far-left induced rioting it's welcomed, when the far-right do it, it's condemned.

That hypocrisy is palpable.

I despise both forms. I'm consistent.

I don't support the National Party, and I never would. Nor do I support or defend violence.

I am simply adding nuance to this discussion. Whilst we have many legitimate reasons to criticise the National Party, we cannot invent reasons out of thin air. Only yesterday two claims were made which had no basis in evidence. I was condemned for just asking for the evidence.

Second to that, it's absolutely relevant to point out inconsistencies i.e. my point about how rioting is considered bad only if one side engages in it (the side you happen to disagree with). In the context of the US example I gave, the rioting was framed as "protests" and a "movement".

It goes back to the Orwell article I cited yesterday, how events can be framed as positive or negative depending on our own political persuasion.

It depends what you mean by "pose a threat".

In party terms, the National Party do not pose a threat to this country. Its leader barely scraped together 1% in the 2022 General Election. Its candidates regularly perform worse elsewhere. As an electoral force, they are about as weak as you could come by. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Yesterday the claim was made that support for the National Party "was rising", but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. So yes, I stand by my claim that they do not pose a threat.

Is it true that some on the far-right opt for violence and aggression? For sure, that is undoubtedly true. It always has been true.

But it's such a tiny fraction of overall crime committed in this country that it shouldn't be amplified as if we were dealing with a serious, ongoing terrorist threat. In this wider context then, let's not disproportionately exaggerate the crime that this relatively small number of thugs commit — as wrong as that crime is and always will be.

I'm far more concerned at the growing number of assaults that have increased across the entire population. That is where our attention should be if we are concerned about crime in this country.

Only yesterday you agreed with me that the National Party were not fascist.

On this point:

…as if everything else is okay

I didn't say any far-right crime was justified. You cannot put words into other people's mouths.

Far from it, I excogitated the reasons why I believed we shouldn't exaggerate the crime committed by a small number of far-right thugs. It exists, it's wrong, but let's not get carried away as if it's an existential threat to the country — because it isn't.

Dublin city centre today is far more dangerous because of many other thugs, but not because of the National Party or the far-right — and this was before the Dublin riots.

Nobody outside social media / online fora even consider the National Party a threat in their day to day lives. But those other marauding thugs that amplify crime in the city are far more in the forefront of people's considerations, and rightly so.

Nobody denied that or argued against it. You're attacking a straw man.